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 went about their lives, forgiven and freed from the burden of their sins by forgiveness given by Christ.
Anyway. I’m gonna back out of this, too, because it’s reduced to people making fun of my screen name and I don’t feel like taking that route.
I honestly respect Catholics, I think they have genuine faith, I just strongly disagree with their methodology. I think the pedophile charge is ridiculous and an attack on all churches through the attack of the Roman Catholic church, and I defend the Catholics any time that charge is thrown out there.
July 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
FATSEXY: show me where it says that all you need to do for salvation is “accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour”. Also, show me where it says that the Bible alone with private interpretation is what God wants. Show me where it says to pray to Jesus (the Bible says pray to his Father – not to him). There are many bunbiblical aspects of protestantism.
Show me the oral “traditions” you hold fast to: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” II Thess. 2:14
What about these things: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30)
July 14th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I’m a cradle Catholic, nonpracticing. Growing up in a primarily Baptist town, I heard a lot of these, along with names like “mackerel-snapper”, “bead-squeezer” and of course “idol-worshipper.” I never ever called the Protestant kids names about their religion, but privately I committed the sin of wanting to punch them in the mouth!
Thanks for this list. Very interesting and informative. I enjoyed the Islam list also. I’ve been telling people stuff off that list forever. Of course, in Bigotville, no one listens.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
So, kids – what have we learned this week?
“Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light.”
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
“Even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.”
Fortunately, we can take comfort in knowing:
“Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”
One bonus quote for JFRATER @379:
Romans 10:8-10 (New International Version)
(8)But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: (9)That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (10) For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
JFrater, since you asked politely:
I first want to ask you who, exactly, prays TO Jesus. I know that I pray to God in Jesus’ name, just like… um… JESUS said to:
John 14:6
6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
Curious also that someone taking the Roman Catholic stance here would have a problem with someone praying to Jesus (seeing how Jesus is God), while not having a problem with the five trillion saints that Roman Catholics pray through for whatever the cause of the day is.
As far as Jesus saying that believing in Him was enough to save you, um…
Mt 22:35-40
35 And one of them, an expert in the law, asked a question to test Him:
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37 He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the greatest and most important commandment.
39 The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.
40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”
_______________
and….
_______________
29 “This is the most important,” Jesus answered:
Listen, Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One.
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
31 “The second is: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”
32 Then the scribe said to Him, “You are right, Teacher! You have correctly said that He is One, and there is no one else except Him.
33 And to love Him with all your heart, with all your understanding, and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, is far more [important] than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34 When Jesus saw that he answered intelligently, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And no one dared to question Him any longer.
________________________
Well, no one dared to question Him other than modern Catholics, apparently.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@Newnik29 (381): But you cannot ignore James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”
Or: John 6:53-58 * 53 * Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. * 54 * Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. * 55 * For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. * 56 * Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. * 57 * Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. * 58 * This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
July 14th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
In Christianity literature and as John introduces himself, John is supposed to be one of Jesus’ disciples. However, many critics argue that John who wrote the Gospel is different from John who was Jesus’ disciple. He called himself John to earn the readers’ trust. Consequently, the real writer of John’s Gospel is not known, as a matter of fact.
This so-called John’s Gospel is believed to be written 65 years after Jesus. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that John was Jesus’ disciple and he was at least 20 years then; this makes John at the age of 85 when he wrote his gospel which is an unusual age for writing. Furthermore, what made John wait 65 years before he began writing his gospel? If you have something very important to write, you do not wait 65 years to do it.
Not only that, but John’s original is also lost as all the originals of the other three gospels. One can never strongly argue that the existing John’s Gospel is really what John did actually write.
Let us examine some texts in John’s Gospel and see how they disagree with other texts in the NT (New Testament) and the OT (Old Testament).
The Beginning:
In John (1:1), “In the beginning was the Word.” This contradicts the OT Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Which one should we believe: the NT or the OT? John or Genesis? Had the Bible been God’s word, we would not have found such contradictions.
Who was Jesus Sent To?
In John, “Jesus came unto his own, and his own received him not.” (1:10). This text proves that Jesus came to his own people i.e., the people of Israel. In Matthew, there is a very clear text where Jesus asserts, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of Israel. (15:24). Can there ever be a clearer assertion? Jesus was sent only to the people of Israel, as he himself confirms.
However, these previous texts are contradicted in “…The Christ, the Saviour of the world.” (John 4:42). John disagrees with himself. This is an example of intra-gospelic contradictions.
God and Flesh:
John says, “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” (1: 14). He means to say that God (SWT) became flesh in the form of Jesus, i.e., that God was embodied in Jesus. In fact, the NT has never finalized the relationship between God and Jesus. There are dozens and even hundreds of contradictory statements in this respect. Some NT texts refer to Jesus as the son of man; some, as the son of God; some, as God in flesh and blood; some, as living; some; as dead for three days; some, as another god with the First God; some, as God instead of that God. You can never come to a clear conclusion about what the NT wants to say about Jesus and about God.
One Son or Two?
John refers to Jesus as “the only begotten Son” (1: 18). This contradicts Luke, who says that Adam is the son of God (3:38). Consequently, God has two sons, not one. Which one to believe: John or Luke or neither?
Water into Wine:
According to John (2: 1-10), Jesus transformed water into wine at a wedding party for everyone to drink. This act on Jesus’ part suggests that Jesus is a wine lover, who was ready to change water, the healthiest drink, into wine, the least healthy drink.
But this picture contradicts Luke (1:15), where John the Baptist was commended as he “shall drink neither wine nor strong drink.” This text suggests that drinking wine is a sin. Is John the Baptist more virtuous than Jesus? John contradicts Luke. Which one to follow: Jesus who changed water into wine or John the Baptists who would not drink wine? The NT always gives us contradictory teachings.
Life into the Dead:
In John (5: 21), Jesus says, “for as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickenth them; even so the Son quickenth whom he will.” This text gives Jesus a power equal to God’s power of quickening the dead. But this runs against other texts said by Jesus himself:
1. Before Jesus healed anyone or quickened a dead person, he used to pray to God first asking him to support him in healing or quickening. So did he in the case of Lazarus. Before he quickened him, he “lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” (John 11:42). This proves that Jesus’ quickening of the dead is not an innate ability of his, but it is a tentatively granted miracle given to him by God on special occasions.
2. Jesus himself said, “The Son can do nothing of himself.” (John 5:30). Jesus made his own actions and miracles subordinate to and dependent on God’s will.
Who Judges?
(A) Jesus said, “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” (John 5: 22. Here Jesus, not God, is the only judge.
(B) Jesus said, “Thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:4). Here God, not Jesus, is the judge and rewarder since the one who rewards is the one who judges.
(C) Jesus said, “I judge no man.” (John 8:15). Here Jesus negates that he is the judge.
Text (A) contradicts Texts (B) and (C). As said before, you can hardly find a sentence in the NT itself. What is the value of a book which gives you instructions in opposite directions?
Before or After?
Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58).
This text contradicts historical facts since everyone knows that Jesus was born about 1700 years after Abraham.
True or Untrue?
Jesus said, “If bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31). But, please, look at this opposite sentence by Jesus himself. Please, check your Bible right now. Jesus said, “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” (John 8:14). The confusion in the NT makes it obvious that this NT cannot be God’s pure word.
Flesh and Blood:
According to John (6: 54), Jesus said, ” Whose eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him at the last day.” This text does not appear in the other three gospels. Then, it makes Jesus the raiser on the last day, which contradicts other NT texts which tell that God, not Jesus, is the rewarder and raiser. Furthermore, no prophet or reformer, neither before Jesus nor after him, required his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Eating-flesh and drinking-blood are very strange requirements, indeed.
Some would argue that the language here is figurative, not literal. But if we escape to figurativeness and take a lot of things figuratively, what remains to be taken literally? God’s word is to be instructive practical teaching, not a poem waiting for literary appreciation and figurative analysis.
Rabboni:
Mary said to Jesus, “Rabboni; which is to say, Master.” ( John 20:16). In this text, the explanation of the word ‘Rabboni’ is added to the text of the NT. This proves that writers, commentators, translators, and reporters were free to add what they wished to add to the NT. This confirms the point that the NT is not God’s pure word. It is a mixture of God’s word, Jesus’ word, disciples’ word, translators’ word, writers’ word, historians’ word, interpolators’ word, churchmen’s word, emperors’ word, and distorters’ word along hundreds of years.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
why blame religion? it’s made up of humans and humans they are. whether you’re the president or the high priest, you’re still human. it’s not religion that’s the problem, it’s the people behind it and yourself.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:26 am
mastermind357: You have a lot to say about contradictions in the bible. All I have to say is, you do not have a clear insight of what you are criticizing, for though I’m not a priest, as a Catholic I can disprove the points you raised. I suggest you approach your local chaplain and have all these things explained to you. You clearly need enlightenment.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:13 am
@Mastermind:
With all due respect, it seems that you do not have a right understanding of biblical analysis or theology and so you’re likely to make several errors in your interpretation of texts. I will endeavour to answer your queries to the best of my ability.
It is generally and widely accepted that the John who wrote the Gospel was the disciple John. Very few people question this.
On what basis do you say being in ones 80’s is an unusual age for writing? That seems to be an arbitrary statement. Also it’s well known that several of the apostles who wrote parts of the NT had scribes who they dictated to.
“Not only that, but John’s original is also lost as all the originals of the other three gospels. One can never strongly argue that the existing John’s Gospel is really what John did actually write.”
Originals of Plato’s works are lost and the earliest manuscripts are copies hundreds of years older than the time when he is said to have wrote them, that said, his writing is rarely questioned.
Also, the earliest manuscripts of John date to within 100 years of it’s being written down, and the book was quoted by several early church fathers in the early 2nd century.
Why didn’t he write sooner? This is really irrelevant to whether he did write it and whether what he wrote is true. There could be a plethora of reasons why he didn’t. Peter did not seek to have his account written down until he knew he was near his death. Also these men were led by the Spirit of God, so put simply…it was written sooner because that’s the way God wanted it. And who are any of us to question God’s timing?
“In John (1:1), “In the beginning was the Word.” This contradicts the OT Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Which one should we believe: the NT or the OT? John or Genesis? Had the Bible been God’s word, we would not have found such contradictions.”
The Word was not created. It was by the Word that heaven and earth were created. “Let there be light!” and there was light…words, the Words of God. It also speaks to the Word being pre-existant before heaven and earth were created.
If you consider that time did not exist as we know it until the universe was created, you would not be able to escape that “in the beginning was the Word” because the Word always is.
“However, these previous texts are contradicted in “…The Christ, the Saviour of the world.” (John 4:42). John disagrees with himself. This is an example of intra-gospelic contradictions.”
Jesus was sent to preach His message to the children of Israel as they were the chosen. However, He was sent to die for all mankind. His death was for all mankind and after He rose form the dead, He sent His disciples to preach to all the nations. There is no contradiction.
“Some NT texts refer to Jesus as the son of man; some, as the son of God; some, as God in flesh and blood; some, as living; some; as dead for three days; some, as another god with the First God; some, as God instead of that God. You can never come to a clear conclusion about what the NT wants to say about Jesus and about God.”
Son of Man was Jesus’ favourite title for Himself, and was one He used to identify Himself with mankind, as He was born of the same blood as mankind and thus was a son of man. This does not contradict His nature as God or the Son of God.
Jesus was the full embodiment of God’s divine nature. His will was the same as the Fathers, His power was the Holy Spirit and He was the Word, the physical manifestation of God.
He is living because He rose from the dead. That’s really not that hard to grasp.
Jehovahs witnesses add “the Word was a god” which is a heresy. This is not reflected in general teaching or the rest of accepted scripture.
“1. Before Jesus healed anyone or quickened a dead person, he used to pray to God first asking him to support him in healing or quickening. So did he in the case of Lazarus. Before he quickened him, he “lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.” (John 11:42). This proves that Jesus’ quickening of the dead is not an innate ability of his, but it is a tentatively granted miracle given to him by God on special occasions.”
Jesus prayed to the Father, also (if you actually read the story of Lazarus completely) Jesus says that He spoke out loud to the Father on this occasion for the benefit of those listening and watching so that the Father would be glorified.
He did not do this in every instance (as you would see if you read the entire gospel). Many times He simply said “get up and walk” or “let it be according to your faith”.
“Jesus himself said, “The Son can do nothing of himself.” (John 5:30). Jesus made his own actions and miracles subordinate to and dependent on God’s will.”
Jesus came to live as a man. Thus He had to be found in form as a man who was a Jew and abided by the scriptures so that His sacrifice would be acceptable. Thus, as a man, He did nothing from His human flesh but by the Father’s will. As it stands, in will, He and the Father are one.
“(B) Jesus said, “Thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.” (Matthew 6:4). Here God, not Jesus, is the judge and rewarder since the one who rewards is the one who judges.”
There is no mention of judgement here. He speaks about a judgement of condemnation, not the giving of rewards, for all His rewards are an act of grace, not because they have been earnt.
“(C) Jesus said, “I judge no man.” (John 8:15). Here Jesus negates that he is the judge.”
Your problem is that you are taking individual lines and interpreting them as if they stand on their own. Every verse is part of a chapter, every chapter is part of a book and every book is part of the whole Bible. You must read the text in it’s context.
Taken here, Jesus is saying that in His time on Earth (before the crucifixion) He is not there to pass judgement, He does not condemn any. When He returns, it will be to judge the world.
“Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58).
This text contradicts historical facts since everyone knows that Jesus was born about 1700 years after Abraham.”
Jesus is the eternal Word and Son of God. He has always been, always is and always will be. He is God and is making that clear by saying “I AM” which was the name for God. He is saying that before Abraham was even born, He always existed.
“Jesus said, “If bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” (John 5:31). But, please, look at this opposite sentence by Jesus himself. Please, check your Bible right now. Jesus said, “Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.” (John 8:14). The confusion in the NT makes it obvious that this NT cannot be God’s pure word.”
According to man, if Jesus bore witness of Himself, His witness would not be true. He points to the Father, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit as witnesses to mankind that His witness is true. But, as Jesus is God, even if He were to bare witness of Himself (which He didn’t) His witness would be true because He is God and there is none greater than God who can bare witness of Him.
If people wanted to test His witness, they had His miracles, His words and the scriptures to test Him against.
“Then, it makes Jesus the raiser on the last day, which contradicts other NT texts which tell that God, not Jesus, is the rewarder and raiser.”
Jesus is God, so how can He not be the raiser? Jesus says He has the power to lay down His life and raise it up again. He demonstrated that He can raise the dead when He raised Lazarus.
“Furthermore, no prophet or reformer, neither before Jesus nor after him, required his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Eating-flesh and drinking-blood are very strange requirements, indeed.”
Jesus often spoke figuratively. He wasn’t literally saying people must eat His blood or His flesh. And Jesus was not a prophet like ANY who came before or after. He was God with us. Later in the scriptures, we see the insitution of the Lords Supper where He explains eating His flesh and drinking His blood. It is a means of rememberance, and those who do it proclaim His death and ressurrection. Those who do not obviously are not the ones who have accepted Him and will thus not see the Kingdom.
The church is also His body on earth. Those who are part of this body partake of His flesh as it were. Those who have faith in Him and have received the Holy Spirit have partaken of His blood and accepted His sacrifice.
“Some would argue that the language here is figurative, not literal. But if we escape to figurativeness and take a lot of things figuratively, what remains to be taken literally? God’s word is to be instructive practical teaching, not a poem waiting for literary appreciation and figurative analysis.”
You don’t seem to understand biblical analysis. The Bible is not a purely instructive book. It is a historical collection of books of many genres. It must be interpreted using the historical-grammatical method, reading in context with the authors intent in mind and aware of how the culture of the time would have received the text. Not everything that is descriptive is prescriptive. Scripture interprets scripture, and the spiritual things cannot be comprehended by one who does not submit to the wisdom of God.
“Mary said to Jesus, “Rabboni; which is to say, Master.” ( John 20:16). In this text, the explanation of the word ‘Rabboni’ is added to the text of the NT. This proves that writers, commentators, translators, and reporters were free to add what they wished to add to the NT. This confirms the point that the NT is not God’s pure word. It is a mixture of God’s word, Jesus’ word, disciples’ word, translators’ word, writers’ word, historians’ word, interpolators’ word, churchmen’s word, emperors’ word, and distorters’ word along hundreds of years.”
The Bible was written down by men by inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit. It says that all scripture is Spirit breathed and doesn’t come from the mind of God.
Whether “which is to say, Master” was added or not does not detract from the message of the Bible or dilute the truth of it.
It’s accuracy and consistency, the care taken in copying it and it’s preservation are renowned. Translators, historians, interpolators, churchmen, emperors and distorters do not change the original text.
That said, on what basis do you say that part of the text was added to the original? There are many times throughout scripture when a word that is presented in Hebrew is followed by an explanation (as the gospels were written in Greek and some reading would not have known certain Hebrew words)
I hope this has cleared some things up for you.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:18 am
@stayaway357
I thought Mastermind had some good points in post 384 and it was a well written comment. I would be interested to see how you would disprove it.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:35 am
Ah, jus realised I missed two of your points mastermind:
One Son or Two?
John refers to Jesus as “the only begotten Son” (1: 18). This contradicts Luke, who says that Adam is the son of God (3:38). Consequently, God has two sons, not one. Which one to believe: John or Luke or neither?
Jesus is the only begotten son of God. Adam was created. And actually now, all who accepted Jesus are adopted as God’s son’s and daughters, so He now has many
but Jesus is still the only begotten Son of God.
Water into Wine:
According to John (2: 1-10), Jesus transformed water into wine at a wedding party for everyone to drink. This act on Jesus’ part suggests that Jesus is a wine lover, who was ready to change water, the healthiest drink, into wine, the least healthy drink.
It suggests nothing of the sort. Wine in moderation is not harmful. Even drinking water to excess can kill you. Also, the wine produced in these times was highly diluted unlike todays wine.
But this picture contradicts Luke (1:15), where John the Baptist was commended as he “shall drink neither wine nor strong drink.” This text suggests that drinking wine is a sin. Is John the Baptist more virtuous than Jesus? John contradicts Luke. Which one to follow: Jesus who changed water into wine or John the Baptists who would not drink wine? The NT always gives us contradictory teachings.
It’s simply said that he wont drink wine or other strong drinks. If one doesn’t dirnk wine, this is good, but if they drink wine responsibly, there is nothing wrong with this either. The Bible also says that the Kingdom of God is not food and drink. Jesus says that it’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man but what comes out of the mouth, because what comes out comes from the heart.
If one gets drunk, he may do things from his heart that are considered sinful.
Again, there is no contradiction, it is describing the different acts of two different, but righteous men. And John the baptist himself confessed that Jesus was greater than he.
What is more virtuous? That a man abstains completely from wine because of his weakness, or that a man has complete self-control and knows when to drink and when not to?
“For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.”
Is the compete text. It doesn’t say “he will be great in the sight of the Lord because he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink”
July 15th, 2009 at 2:49 am
I’m a Catholic. Good thing you place this up. I don’t mean to offend Protestants in the following statement. I like Protestants. Especially Luthernians & Anglicans.
Face it Protestants, we Catholics have all the fun.
I’m just bragging, okay? No anti-Protestant elements here. Just harmless bragging.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:07 am
*The Bible was written down by men by inspiration of God through the Holy Spirit. It says that all scripture is Spirit breathed and doesn’t come from the mind of God.
Correction, doesn’t come from the mind of man
July 15th, 2009 at 3:18 am
mom424, Organised religion is fundementally flawed as it usually depends on taking someone elses translation of the bible as your own. Just read it for yourselves without applying your brain washed dogmas before hand. Noticed that the inquesitions, conquistidors, the institutionalised child abuse and the fact the current pope joined Adolfs legions seem not to be a misconception.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:12 am
@Clarkeeee (392): Well said (sarcasm), btw you sound like a cult leader.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Great. Quote your own sources to support your argument.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:20 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun
July 15th, 2009 at 6:23 am
As far as eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking His blood, John says that Jesus is what? The Word.
You are supposed to “consume” Jesus – i.e. study His Word, the Bible. Simple enough. At the eating of bread in wine is a symbolic gesture to show that you are trying to consume the Word. Jesus even outright says, “This do in remembrance of me.”.
Not “This do to literally eat me again every week.”
To remember Him.
Anyway, for real I’m going to back out of this because I’m coming across as way too combative about this all, and I’m also coming across as Catholic bashing, which I do not want to do, there will be Catholics and Baptists and Methodists and all denominations of Christians in heaven.
Well, I think there will, at least. Pope says only Catholics are going, though. Had to get that in.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:27 am
I suggest watching Steven Hawkings doc ‘Master of the Universe’ @ http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com esp. Stizzy! Enough with the bible quotes, if there was a god it is not something to rejoice about. This religous fervor has created more suffering and discord than anything in history.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:41 am
@395: The Sun danced in the sky! Sounds like an acid trip or mass halucination to me! The sun is the center of our Solar System and if it deviated in any way we would all be toast! The temperature of the Earth varies according to sunspot activity, think what would happen if it deviated in any way.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:07 am
@lostatsea:
Actually it was someone else who was quoting the Bible, I was simply responding to their queries. That said, why shouldn’t I quote the Bible as it is the foundation of my thinking and my life? Maybe for you God is not something to rejoice about, but for many people He is, so why can’t you allow them to rejoice? If you don’t want to read the quotes, you are perfectly within your rights to skip them.
I have to say, it is also getting tiresome to hear this same myth touted over and over that “belief in God has caused more suffering than anything in history” Let’s look at some figures:
Pre-Hitler Germany/Hitler and the Nazis WWI: 20,000,000 dead, 21,000,000 wounded
WWII: 72,000,000
Holocaust: 17,000,000? (estimates range from 7 to 26 million)
Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin Bolshevik revolution and Russian Civil War: 15,000,000
Joseph Stalin 20,000,000
Mao Zedong 14,000,000–20,000,000
Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) 750,000–1,700,000
Abortion*
China estimates 1971–2006: 300,000,000
Russia estimates 1954–1991: 280,000,000
U.S. estimates 1928–2007: 26,000,000
France estimates 1936–2006: 5,749,731
UK estimates 1958–2006: 6,090,738
Germany estimates 1968–2007: 3,699,624
Add to that much of the suffering being caused by gun and knife violence, politcal, territorial and ecomomical wars, poverty…how many of these have been caused by belief in God? They have definately been caused by some kind of human driven fervor.
And whether someone says they are doing something “In the name of God” or not, it does not change that these atrocities were committed by human beings because of human beings. People have the naive assumption that were there no God, there would be no war. If no one believed in God, I guarantee you that suffering would not stop.
I personally find it ironic, because it makes more sense to me that the worlds suffering and discord has all come about due to the rejection of God.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:12 am
@Stizzy: The doc was for you, the bible quotes were for everyone! Montana Freethinkers. Adolph Hitler Quotes … the practical existence of a religious belief.” [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152] …
http://www.mtfreethinkers.org/essays…/religion/adolph_hitler.htm
“Kill them all. God will select those who should go to heaven and those who should go to hell.”
— Abbot Arnold de Citeaux, 1205 (during the Fourth Crusade)
“Kill them all, for God knows His own.”
— Pope Innocent III, to his troops in the Albigensian Crusade of 1209
“God is introduced to give dignity and emphasis … and then He is banished. It was this very atheistic Declaration [of Independence] which had inspired the ‘higher law’ doctrine of the radical antislavery men. If the mischievous abolitionists had only followed the Bible instead of the godless Declaration, they would have been bound to acknowledge that human bondage was divinely ordained. The mission of southerners was therefore clear; they must defend the word of God against abolitionist infidels.”
— Thomas Smyth, minister of 2nd Presbyterian Church of Charleston, S.C., 11/21/1861
“Slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law… The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”
— Vatican statement, 1866
These are Christian ethics?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:24 am
@lostatsea1 (400): You are wrong.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:28 am
@lostatsea:
They’re not reflective of what Jesus taught, so therefore they are not true Biblical ethics. Anyone who has actually read and understood the Bible would know this.
Btw, document not found. But let’s see what Hitler has said in the past:
“The types of creatures on the earth are countless, and on an individual level their self-preservation instinct as well as the longing for procreation is always unlimited; however, the space in which this entire life process plays itself out is limited. It is the surface area of a precisely measured sphere on which billions and billions of individual beings struggle for life and succession. In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn contains the precondition for evolution.”
“The history of the world in the ages when humans did not yet exist was initially a representation of geological occurrences. The clash of natural forces with each other, the formation of a habitable surface on this planet, the separation of water and land, the formation of the mountains, plains, and the seas. That [was] is the history of the world during this time. Later, with the emergence of organic life, human interest focuses on the appearance and disappearance of its thousandfold forms. Man himself finally becomes visible very late, and from that point on he begins to understand the term “world history” as referring to the history of his own development—in other words, the representation of his own evolution. This development is characterized by the never-ending battle of humans against animals and also against humans themselves.”
I’m assuming you were going to argue that he was a Christian. Does that sound like Biblical thinking?
Who the Bible quotes were for is irrelevant. Mastermind posted them in general and I responded to him alone on that matter. If you can quote popes and abbots to try and prove your point, why do you protest that someone else quote the Bible? Seems to me to be a double standard.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:31 am
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zIrgZqm...
July 15th, 2009 at 8:39 am
“The URL contained a malformed video ID.”
Not sure what that means
July 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am
@lostatsea1 (403): Your link is coming up as a malformed url when it gets to youtube.
Maybe a re-posting?
July 15th, 2009 at 8:43 am
@Stizzy (404): I agree 100%
July 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
@deeeziner(405) Sorry about that,I don’t know how that happened!
@Stizzy: Since we have exchanged(sometimes heated!) posts regarding your creationist views..this is a fascinating doc on Neanderthal man, during the Ice Age and the emergence of modern man. The melting of the vast mile thick ice sheets were most likely the foundation of the flood legends.
Neanderthal @ http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
You will never change my view that organized religion is power control or that one needs a book to tell one how to live, rather many books,theories and other beliefs are necessary to explore the wonders of our universe and the biological entity we call Earth.
Peace
July 15th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Fatsexy,
How you ever get the idea of just “believing” in Jesus from the passages you quoted is beyond me. Tell me, how do you love God “with all your heart”?? How do you “love your neighbor”?? Do you just think about it?? NO! You can only love through acts and deeds. Jesus called us to BOTH believe and ACT. James reiterates this by saying “faith without works is dead.” Faith without acts of love and charity is indeed meaningless.
As for the Eucharist, your tradition of seeing it only “consuming the Word” appeared with John Calvin and the rest of the Protestant movement in the 1550’s. Prior to that, all Christians believed it is act of actually consuming Jesus body and blood. Not only does John 6 support that it is indeed Jesus’ true body, but the greek word used for eat in the text is “trogo”, which means to actually chew or gnaw using your mouth. Scripture means what it says, so stop trying to use mental gymnastics to get around it.
One of the problems of Protestant methods of study is text proofing, which causes you to pull passages out of context from the whole of the letteror from the whole of Scripture. It ruins or twists the meaning and teaching. Your statement about calling the Pope “father” supports this claim. Read the whole letter again, not just the passage and see what Jesus is trying to say. If you take it literally, as you seem to be doing, then we are all in a bind, and thus sinning, because we all call our biological fathers “father”. We all call our school teachers “teacher”. Knowing this as well as the fact that Paul explicitly refers to himself as “father” to Timothy must mean that your conclusion is wrong. Why don’t you do the homework to figure it out.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Rick Astley…. haha.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:38 am
@Stizzy(402)
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance
with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]
“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
the practical existence of a religious belief.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]
“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.”
[Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]
“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]
“….the personification of the devil as the symbol
of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11,
precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]
“Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking’ of the Reich as they call it.”
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]
“The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.”
[Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]
July 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I think we have more pressing problems than arguing over religion or who is right or wrong.
9/11, war on terror, global financial meltdown, ongoing pollution of planet, new world order, manipulation of mass media, chemtrails, military industrial complex, the oligarchy which controls govt. etc. etc.
http://www.globalresearch.ca an incredibly astute site regarding the games being played.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/664.html
US General (retired) speaks out
July 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@lostatsea1 (412): Obvious Propaganda.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@lostatsea1 (411): Don’t forget your favorite… conspiracy theories.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14357
In the latest twist to the California budget saga, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and JPMorgan Chase (which each got $25 billion in bailout money from the taxpayers) and Bank of America (which got $15 billion) have refused California’s request for a loan to tide it over until October. Until the State can get things sorted out, it has started paying its creditors in IOUs (“I Owe You’s” or promises to pay bearing interest, technically called registered warrants). Its Wall Street creditors, however, have refused to take them. Why? The pot says the kettle is a poor credit risk!
Crooked bankers and Wall st. get bailouts but not a State!!
July 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@lostatsea1 (412): That general also studies parapsychology. He believes in crap like that of he throws out wild accusations.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@lostatsea1 (415): This list is about misconceptions of the catholic church and the discussion is on religion. Get out of here with that crap”. You do this on every list.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
@someone else(414) Yes it is my favourite pastime, research!
The more I delve the deeper I go and I firmly believe 9/11 was a false flag operation. As I realize I could never change Stizzy’s belief in a 6,000 yr universe, I do hope I could at least offer some nuggets of wisdom.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
i know firsthand catholic schools refuse to teach any kind of evolution or even creationism… its only been 3 years since ive been out of that hellride and i was always scolded for asking questions about that type of thing… maybe i just had the bad catholic schools …?
July 15th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
But on what do you base your wisdom on lostatsea? You said no one needs a book to tell them how to live life, well where did you get all your information? Was it not from written words, whether bound by covers or not?
By what measuring rod do you decide that one book is worth paying attention to and another isn’t? It’s all well and good to address the problems of today, but you cannot tackle the problems of today without first realising the root of the problems. For if you chop off the branches, the root remains and new branches grow in the place of the old branches.
So the question is, what is the cause of all the problems of today? I say it is mankind, more so the heart of mankind.
And how does one deal with the heart? Can it change simply by doing “good things”? No, for history has shown us that many have done “good things” to no avail for changing the heart. It would seem that it is beyond the power of man to do so.
The world is dying and all that we see is passing away, and it seems more than rational, more than logical, more than reasonable and more than certain that this is because the world is estranged from the one who created it and gives it life.
So what would anyone say is the alternative? What is mankind to do and how is it to survive?
What is the foundation of all things? If one cannot know this for sure, they cannot hope to impart wisdom onto anyone else, for what is their wisdom? They are like a ship tossed to and fro on stormy waves. Where ever the winds of so-called wisdom blow, they are dragged along, even if it is to destruction.
Btw, about the Hitler quotes. Anyone can toss “God” into a sentence to make it sound good, but is what he says consistent with Jesus? No. Is what he did consistent with Jesus? No. So it is irrelevant to the truth.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z29jFDmkoEc
Open Your Mind And Watch Above.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@407
Actually, the creationist position is that the ice age was a consequence of the Global Flood, and that there was only one ice-age. And neanderthal man was fully human but simply a genetic variation, as after the blood, humanity would’ve been driven into a bottleneck which would result in rapid mutation. They were no less intelligent than we are.
In fact, it’s known they had larger brains and that their women had easier childbirth.
Also it doesn’t make sense that legends of a world-wide flood and people surviving in a boat would come about from melting ice-caps. The Bible talks of fountains deep in the earth being broken up whilst rain fell from the sky. This doesn’t describe melting ice-caps. Also it says that mountains were completely covered to a depth of 25 feet. If the flood were global, it wouldn’t have covered mountains.
The dimensions given to describe the Ark have been empircally shown to be optimal for the kind of conditions it would have faced. Unlike say, the epic of gilgamesh which describes a cube.
I suggest reading more here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/ice-age
and here for bits on neanderthals:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/apemen-missing-links
July 15th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
389 stizzy: One Son or Two?
John refers to Jesus as “the only begotten Son” (1: 18). This contradicts Luke, who says that Adam is the son of God (3:38). Consequently, God has two sons, not one. Which one to believe: John or Luke or neither?
Jesus is the only begotten son of God. Adam was created. And actually now, all who accepted Jesus are adopted as God’s son’s and daughters, so He now has many
but Jesus is still the only begotten Son of God.
Whats the reason that he was given the title, “begotten son?”
July 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Also, let us look at John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” Ironically, Trinitarians from my personal experience with them rely on this verse (John 3:16) very heavily when trying to prove that God came down to earth to die for our sins. They claim that Jesus being God’s unique son, makes him the only Son for God, which ultimately lead us to the conclusion that Jehovah is Jesus.
Also, let us look at Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son….” Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was 13 years older than Isaac. Yet we see that “his one and only son” expression was used for Isaac. The Bible uses expressions like this to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. The Bible in this verse glorifies Isaac for being the chosen sacrifice to God, according to what the Jews and Christians claim in their corrupted Bible. So Jesus being God’s “only begotten Son” in John 3:16 doesn’t make him God nor the only Son of God.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Defining the meaning of the word “Son”:
After you finish reading this article, please visit: “Son of God” is same as “Servant of God” in Hebrew. Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity.
Now in Isaiah 9:6 “….there has been a son given to us,………”,
Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are “gods” (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.’ ” “gods” here in Hebrew is “Elohim”, which is plural of “EL”. It is the same exact thing as “EL” used for Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, since “gods” is a combination of several “EL”s. And as clearly shown here, for someone to be called “god” or “God” in the Bible it wouldn’t make him GOD Almighty Himself, the LORD or Jehovah. I also want to point out that any “Son of GOD” in the Bible is a “god” or “God”.
Please visit: The “GOD (El)” title was given to others before and after Jesus in the Bible.
Also, let us look at John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” Ironically, Trinitarians from my personal experience with them rely on this verse (John 3:16) very heavily when trying to prove that Allah or Jehovah came down to earth to die for our sins. They claim that Jesus being God’s unique son, makes him the only Son for God, which ultimately lead us to the conclusion that Jehovah is Jesus.
Also, let us look at Hebrews 11:17 “By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son….” Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was 13 years older than Isaac. Yet we see that “his one and only son” expression was used for Isaac. The Bible uses expressions like this to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. The Bible in this verse glorifies Isaac for being the chosen sacrifice to God, according to what the Jews and Christians claim in their corrupted Bible. So Jesus being God’s “only begotten Son” in John 3:16 doesn’t make him God nor the only Son of God.
Please visit Isaac and Ishmael in Islam and Christianity.
Now, Let us look at Exodus 4:22 “Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Here we see in this verse that Israel is not only God’s so called “Son”, but also his first born !!. Does this mean that Jehovah is Israel? Does it mean that we must worship Israel as Jehovah or Allah? Of course not !!!
Also, let us look at Jeremiah 31:9 “I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Ephraim in this verse means Israel. This verse is similar to Exodus 4:22.
Let us also look at Psalm 2:7 “….Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Here in this verse we see that God not only called David his “Son”, but also had made him his begotten Son !!!.
Swapping Game: Let us play a little swapping game between the verses of John 3:16, Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9, and Psalm 2:7. Let us take “his only begotten Son” from John 3:16 and replace it in Exodus 4:22, and let us take “even my firstborn” from Exodus 4:22 and replace it in John 3:16.
Do you honestly think that the little swap game above would change anything in the meaning? Would you still have believed in Jesus as Jehovah if the above swap was true?
The above swap proves that the word “Son” doesn’t mean actual biological “Son” at all. It just means that Jesus is a “Son” of Jehovah in a way that Jehovah loved him so much that he chose him to be his messenger to the people of Israel.
Another Swapping Game: Let us replace “I begotten thee” from Psalm 2:7, and replace it in John 3:16, and take “his only begotten Son” from John 3:16 and replace it in Psalm 2:7
Again, do you honestly think that the little swap game above would change anything in the meaning? Would you still have believed in Jesus as Jehovah if the above swap was true?
Clearly, the above swap proves that the word “Son” doesn’t mean actual biological “Son” at all. It just means that Jesus is a “Son” of Jehovah in a way that Jehovah loved him so much that he chose him to be his messenger to the people of Israel.
Jesus worshiping his God:
Let us look at Luke 5:16 “And he (Jesus) withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God.” Here we see that Jesus had a God, a supreme God, who is higher than him and stronger than him. Jesus was God’s servant and he prayed to God so God would strengthen him more and reinforce him with patience and desire to continue his mission in spreading the word of God Almighty.
Also, let us look at Matthew 26:39 “And going a little way forward, he (Jesus) fell upon his face, praying and saying ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.’ ” Here in this verse we see two things: (1) Jesus bowed down on his face and prayed in submission to his GOD in obedience. (2) Jesus was begging his GOD to let the cup pass away from him. Jesus did not have the power to will it for himself and make the cup pass away from Jesus. GOD had to do it for Jesus !. How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe, the all knowing, most powerful??!!
Also, let us look at Matthew 26:42 “Again, for the second time, he (Jesus) went off and prayed, saying: ‘My Father, if it is not possible for this to pass away except I drink it, let your will take place.’” My comments on this verse are similar to the above one (Matthew 26:39), Jesus begged his GOD to will what Jesus wanted to happen. Jesus couldn’t will it by himself.
Also, let us look at Matthew 26:44 “So leaving them, he (Jesus) went off and prayed for the third time, saying once more the same word.” Here we see that Jesus for the third time begged his GOD to will what Jesus wished for in Matthew 26:39 above. How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe if he (1) begs, and (2) lacks power??!!
July 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
@Stizzy(420) You are basing all your replies by quoting the bible which tends to be contradictory.
The story of Adam and Eve is part of the Biblical mythology of Original Sin. Christians, Muslims and Jews are all ‘people of the book’ who take as holy the stories of the Hebrew era. In this story, the existence of death and suffering are attributed to the ’sin’ of eating from the ‘tree of knowledge’. Before this event, there was no death of suffering. Adam and Eve were innocent, and obeyed a serpent that told them to eat from the tree. Apparently, they obeyed the wrong being, because God’s punishment was to inflict death and suffering upon them and all their ancestors.
The story fails to present any valid morals and instead proposes that (a) it is acceptable to punish people for the sins of others (original sin) and (b) that death is a suitable punishment for disobedience (ever wondered why so many oppressive governments were bedfellows with established religions?). Also Adam and Eve’s children must have slept with their own parents. It is an immoral story that we shouldn’t suffer upon children until they are old enough to understand it as a religious myth. God is shown to be a bad parent, uncaring. The logic of the story is faulty. The story itself, in the same way as other religious texts formed, is a compilation and redaction of religious myths, and has no consistent single author. Noah similarily must have practiced incest with his children, Don’t you see the problem?
July 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
@someone else (417): Nice name.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
@Stizzy: I very much agree with you on the idea that most, if not all, of man’s problems can be attributed to Man. I am quite sure that God, would not in any way profess the killing of His creation. If not because He is kind, then because he must at least have an interest in the well-being of those He rules. It is, instead, when one man decides to use God’s name for thier own agenda, and therefore attempts to shed thier own responsibility, that faith in him can become dangerous to the rest of the populace.
I may not necessarily believe in Him, but I understand why others do… It’s the idea of having someone always there, someone who cares for you and gives you a set of morals to follow. That’s not a bad thing in essence, but unfortunately, many are keen to abuse it.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
@A.E.M.: AH! Would that be the same god that destroyed all humanity (exept for Noah and family), the one who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah or sent the ten plagues on the people of Egypt. Neither kind nor forgiving!
July 15th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
For your consideration….
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Stephen H Roberts
faith, n. “Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
Ambrose Bierce
“If God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.” Voltaire
“If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.” Voltaire
“Which is it? Is man one of God’s blunders, or is God one of man’s?” Nietzsche
“To you I am an atheist….To God I am the loyal opposition.” Woody Allen
“The clergy know, that I know that they do not know.”
Robt G Ingersoll
“The idea of Christ is much older than Christianity.”
George Santayana
‘If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be– a Christian.” Mark Twain
“And if there were a God, I think it is very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence.” Bertrand Russell
“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.” Jonathan Swift
A few pithy observations to chew on.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Catholics are NOT the first christians! HELLO, Messianics are the first christians. Messianics are Jews who believe Jesus was the Messiah. All of the apostles as well as Jesus were Jewish NOT CATHOLIC! DUHHH!
July 15th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@Mastermind:
Whats the reason that he was given the title, “begotten son?”
Ironically, Trinitarians from my personal experience with them rely on this verse (John 3:16) very heavily when trying to prove that God came down to earth to die for our sins. They claim that Jesus being God’s unique son, makes him the only Son for God, which ultimately lead us to the conclusion that Jehovah is Jesus.
For starters, John 3:16, unfortunately, has been used a lot in evangelism and is really the wrong verse to use for reasons I won’t go into here.
Yes, Jesus is Yahweh. He claimed as such. Jesus is unique as the only begotten Son of God because He is the only one who is completely God in nature. Adam and the rest of mankind were created in God’s likeness as a reflection of Him. Jesus is the full embodiment of God, full of knowledge and power.
If mankind is like light reflected off the moon, Jesus is the light radiating directly from the Sun.
Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was 13 years older than Isaac. Yet we see that “his one and only son” expression was used for Isaac. The Bible uses expressions like this to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. The Bible in this verse glorifies Isaac for being the chosen sacrifice to God, according to what the Jews and Christians claim in their corrupted Bible. So Jesus being God’s “only begotten Son” in John 3:16 doesn’t make him God nor the only Son of God.
Isaac was the only son of promise, the only one ordained by God to bring forth the line that would lead to the Messiah and the salvation of all mankind. If you consider that when a man and a woman are joined in marriage, they become one flesh, Isaac would be the only begotten in the sense that he came from Abraham and Sarah where as Ishmael came from Abraham and Hagar.
But it helps to look at the sentence in it’s entirety as you have not done, missing a key point:
“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.”
It specifically says “his only begotten son, of whom it was said ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called’ ”
This was not said of Ishmael or any other. In this sense, Isaac was the only begotten.
Similarly with Jesus, it was said of no other man that they would die for the estrangement of mankind from God so that none would have to perish but have Eternal Life. Of no other is it spoken of in such a way, and by no other name may mankind be saved. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
@ Mastermind:
“After you finish reading this article, please visit: “Son of God” is same as “Servant of God” in Hebrew. Bible agrees with Islam, not with pagan trinity.”
You forget that the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew.
“Psalm 82:6 “I said, ‘You are “gods” (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.’ ” “gods” here in Hebrew is “Elohim”, which is plural of “EL”. It is the same exact thing as “EL” used for Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, since “gods” is a combination of several “EL”s. And as clearly shown here, for someone to be called “god” or “God” in the Bible it wouldn’t make him GOD Almighty Himself, the LORD or Jehovah. I also want to point out that any “Son of GOD” in the Bible is a “god” or “God”.”
There are many words in Hebrew that can have several meanings, however this meaning is dependent on context. You must read the verse in the context of the chapter, the book and the Bible as a whole. In context, it is made obvious that when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God and the only begotten Son of God, there is a distinction. No other is spoken of in such a way.
“Now, Let us look at Exodus 4:22 “Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” Here we see in this verse that Israel is not only God’s so called “Son”, but also his first born !!. Does this mean that Jehovah is Israel? Does it mean that we must worship Israel as Jehovah or Allah? Of course not !!!”
Remember He was talking about a nation and not a person, and furthermore He was speaking figuratively. No other nation had been adopted by God in such a way and for such a purpose. They became His firstborn nation as it were.
“Let us also look at Psalm 2:7 “….Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” Here in this verse we see that God not only called David his “Son”, but also had made him his begotten Son !!!.”
I have to say, here you have been somewhat dishonest and twisted what the verse actually says to support your point. That entire chapter is a prophetic psalm written by David about the Messiah, but the verse in question is God speaking:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me[the Messiah],
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall break[a] them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”
“The above swap proves that the word “Son” doesn’t mean actual biological “Son” at all. It just means that Jesus is a “Son” of Jehovah in a way that Jehovah loved him so much that he chose him to be his messenger to the people of Israel.”
It is never said that Jesus is the biological Son of God because God is a Spirit and is not made of flesh and blood. You’ve started with a false premise to reach your conclusion, and therefore your argument isn’t sound.
“Here we see that Jesus had a God, a supreme God, who is higher than him and stronger than him. Jesus was God’s servant and he prayed to God so God would strengthen him more and reinforce him with patience and desire to continue his mission in spreading the word of God Almighty.”
As I’ve explained to you above, Jesus had a specific mission on earth and He had to live as a man. Thus, in His manhood, He worshipped God as a man would. He made Himself of lower station for the purpose of dying for mankind and also to leave an example to His followers. His actual status was not diminished, but He acted in such a way as if it were.
“Jesus was begging his GOD to let the cup pass away from him. Jesus did not have the power to will it for himself and make the cup pass away from Jesus. GOD had to do it for Jesus !. How can Jesus be the Creater of this Universe, the all knowing, most powerful??!!”
Again, Jesus was both man and God. As a man He experienced fear and as a man He was tested as we all must be tested. His was an example of absolute obedience, because despite His loathing of what was to come, He did not shy away or try to flee, but His will became that of the Father’s.
Living as a man, Jesus purposefully limited Himself. It was not that He couldn’t do things, it was that being as faithful as He was to His mission to live as a man, He would limit what He would do.
It will help to use an analogy for the relationship of the triune Godhead:
God the Father is like a mind. God the Son is like the physical body. The Holy Spirit is like the heart pumping blood through the body and the electrical signals travelling through the nervous system.
The body will not do anything without the will of the mind and the power of the blood. The mind functions through the body via the beating of the heart, and the heart also feeds and nourishes the body, transmitting signals from the mind. Yet still, the mind and the heart are within the body and without the body, the will of the mind cannot be expressed and the desire of the heart cannot be known. Yet, all these parts are one body and united and whislt one may submit to the will of another, they are all in perfect union and of equal worth.
I hope this anwsers your queries
July 15th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
@MayoGalway: Yum! I do like chewing on your pithies!
July 16th, 2009 at 12:00 am
@lostatsea:
“@Stizzy(420) You are basing all your replies by quoting the bible which tends to be contradictory.”
Most people do not actually know how to read and interpret the Bible properly, so upon that basis, how can such people claim it is contradictory?
If you do not understand a foreign language, how can you say that it has errors or is worthless? You argue from your ignorance as if it is truth.
That said, apart from God, what reason is there not to be contradictory? How do we have laws of logic that say you cannot be contradictory? This makes perfect sense for the biblical God who can never deny Himself and never lie, who is consistent, logical and faithful. Laws of logic proceed from Him, but what reason do you have for them? Every time you use them, you borrow from God’s universe.
Indeed, to even defend your use of them, you will have to first presuppose logic as you would be arguing logically.
I quote the Bible because I presuppose it, and I can present conclusions and evidence that justify my presupposition. Can you?
The story fails to present any valid morals and instead proposes that (a) it is acceptable to punish people for the sins of others (original sin)
You misunderstand. “Sin” means estrangement from God. In God we live, move and have our being. If you are estranged from God, therefore, you life will decay, your being will decay and you will perish. If you are away from light, you are in darkness. If you remove heat, you are cold. Because of the choice of Adam and Eve, all humans are born estranged from God and none of us seek to be reconciled of our own accord. Furthermore, though we did not do the same thing Adam did, we all do other things that cause estrangement.
Being born estranged, we are already condemned to eventually die, yet continuing on in this estrangement, we will be judged by what we do.
(b) that death is a suitable punishment for disobedience (ever wondered why so many oppressive governments were bedfellows with established religions?).
If you are estranged from God, you are going to die. What you’re saying is akin to saying “Cold is a suitable punishment for stepping out of heat.” it is a consequence. What is the punishment comes form what you do once estranged.
Also Adam and Eve’s children must have slept with their own parents. It is an immoral story that we shouldn’t suffer upon children until they are old enough to understand it as a religious myth.
Yet even in an evolutionary world view, the first beings would have had to mate with their siblings and we see this all the time in the animal kingdom, yet you label it as immoral. Tell me, what is your foundation for morality?
Also, the laws on sleeping with relations did not come into effect until the time of Moses. This is because genetically, Adam and Eve would have been perfect yet all of their offspring would be subject to genetic decay. This would cause a build up of potentially harmful mutations, raising the risk that close relations mating would produced a highly deformed child. Thus, when it became too dangerous for mankind, God insituted laws about incest.
God is shown to be a bad parent, uncaring.
In what sense? You could argue that mankind chose to be emancipated from God, and that He can only be a parent to those who approach Him as a Father and accept adoption.
The logic of the story is faulty. The story itself, in the same way as other religious texts formed, is a compilation and redaction of religious myths, and has no consistent single author. Noah similarily must have practiced incest with his children, Don’t you see the problem?
As I asked above, what reason do you have for logic?
I suggest readnig this article on “religious myths:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0169a.txt
Noah had a wife, and by the time he took his wife there would have been millions of people on the earth. Furthermore, before he entered the ark he had three sons who had wives. Why would he have needed to have slept with a relative?
July 16th, 2009 at 12:09 am
@lostatsea:
@A.E.M.: AH! Would that be the same god that destroyed all humanity (exept for Noah and family), the one who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah or sent the ten plagues on the people of Egypt. Neither kind nor forgiving
God is just and God is merciful. That is His nature. He forgives those who seek forgiveness, and yet He still acts in order to preserve those who don’t seek forgiveness. The rest He must judge because He does not tolerate iniquity.
There was enough space in the Ark for many people and undoubtedly Noah tried in vain to persuade others to join him. They did not.
Similarly He was patient with Egypt in telling pharoah to let His people go, and pharoah did not. Thus Egypt faced the consequences.
And finaly Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of grave travesties, yet even with them God was patient and Abraham asked God if He would destroy that place if there was even one righteous person in it, because far be it from Him to destroy the righteous with the unrighteous. Lot and his family were taken out and Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. So how many good people do you think were left?
And similarly now, as the world is perishing, He has provided a means to survive through His Son and He patiently waits on mankind to accept His offer, but eventually it will be too late.
Was it not right for God to judge the guilty?
July 16th, 2009 at 12:25 am
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Quite ambiguous and arbitrary. He assumes everyone has the same way of looking at the world as he does.
“Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
Does the one who says as such know all things or possess enough knowledge to know that the one who speaks of belief speaks without knowledge? Indeed the Bible, God and Jesus are unparalleled, so if one does not possess true knowledge about them and professes them to be fiction without justification, he speaks without knowledge.
“If God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.”
Why?
“If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated.”
I guess he never heard of creating an idol?
twisting the truth of God to fit what a person wants Him to be.
“Which is it? Is man one of God’s blunders, or is God one of man’s?”
Neither, we are own blunder because we made our own choices to be blunderers.
“The idea of Christ is much older than Christianity.”
How wonderfully true
for in the beginning was the Word, and His coming was prophesied over a thousand years before His birth. For indeed, Christ means The Annointed One, and this was expected long before what we call “Christianity” formed.
If Christ were here now, there is one thing he would not be– a Christian
I can agree in part, because those who call themselves “Christians” fail to do what He told them to, furthermore “Christian” is not a title He could have, for He is the Christ.
And if there were a God, I think it is very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence
Quite an arbitrary statement really. How would they know this about God unless God Himself told them?
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.
If one was never reasoned into something, they have no reason to be in that something. If you simply expose that, I’m sure they will reason themselves out of it if they are wise
Interesting pithies
July 16th, 2009 at 12:33 am
@Anon 429:
It is, instead, when one man decides to use God’s name for thier own agenda, and therefore attempts to shed thier own responsibility, that faith in him can become dangerous to the rest of the populace.
Indeed, I agree. When people abuse the name of God it is very dangerous for all mankind. It tarnishes the name of God and spreads doubt in Him. Such a person acts from their own selfishness and desire to craft their own tower of babel.
This is why I believe it is so important to correct misunderstandings about God and reveal the truth about Him to all people, and also why it is imperitive that people do all within their power to be certain about God, because the stakes are just to high to be indifferent. I would rather be certain that God is true or not rather than living with the uncertainty knowing any moment it could be too late to act.
I may not necessarily believe in Him, but I understand why others do… It’s the idea of having someone always there, someone who cares for you and gives you a set of morals to follow. That’s not a bad thing in essence, but unfortunately, many are keen to abuse it.
For me it runs far deeper than simply having someone there. It’s knowing you have a purpose, have a meaning and have potential. It’s knowing that there is a wonderful destiny that awaits you full of wonder, possibilty and also responsibility. It’s knowing that your humanity was so dearly treasured that the only one who chose to be born chose also to suffer and die for you. It justifies my existence and the existence of the universe, making sense of all I see.
But yes, sadly many many people abuse this and trample on the blood of Jesus.
Deepest respect to you for your insight Anon.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Do you all believe there is a Truth? One universal Truth of what we are, why we are, and of God? It makes sense doesn’t it… there can only be one maginificent Truth that explains everything.
Assume for one moment that Jesus Christ truly is the Son of God, and from his earthly life this single universal Truth was unveiled. How would you protect the Truth through the ages? The Bible in of itself is just words. Man reading the Bible is what brings to life the Word of God. Doesn’t it make perfect sense to protect that Truth with a Church? Not led by democratic majority opinions, but by one continuous lineage of individuals with whom infallible holy authority is given by God to protect that Truth.
Democratic interpretation of the Bible allows change to enter over time. “Change” from the Truth, is subsequently not the Truth.
If you believe in Jesus Christ, but subject the Bible to your own personal interpretation, or believe the interpretation of other splinter Christian denominations, it is impossible to exactly arrive at that Truth. I’m not implying everything you believe is wrong, (I would rather focus on what we share in common in the spirit of ecumenicalism) but it naturally follows that the absolute Truth is not attainable.
If you don’t believe in Jesus Christ… well, you probably didn’t read to the end of this post anyways.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:52 am
“If God did not exist, it would have been necessary to invent him.”
There would be no necessity to invent God if he did not exist.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:15 am
@Chad:
Are you speaking about the Pope? Definately elders were instituted to protect, watch over and teach those placed under their authority, however, there was never one single elder in the beginnings of the church.
God’s Word is protected in the sense that no amount of wrong interpretation can change the truth of the Word. If distortion is significant, it is no longer that truth but a distortion of it, yet the truth remains.
And if we are all of one Spirit, and hold to the authority and truth of the Bible, we will not be swayed.
The only infallible holy authority who is head of the church is Jesus. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, therefore all things should be measured beside Him.
Therefore, if one who is placed in authority says something contrary to scripture and what Jesus said (say that the world was made in 6 days), they are not infallible and their words cannot be relied on in this instance.
Indeed we must interpret scripture according to scripture, leaning not on our own understanding but upon the wisdom of God and the instruction of the Holy Spirit. When Paul spread the good news, he commended some for daily searching the scriptures they had to see if what he said was true. Yet, we always interpret what we read according to our personal opinions. It is unavoidable hence why it is all the more wise for us not to rely on the interpretation of one individual, and also to look to what is most reasonable, rational, logical and consistent. For God made our minds with the ability to reason, rationalise, apply logic and be consistent, because He is.
It follows that there is a truth we can be certain of if we trust in the God who made it possible.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:28 am
@Stizzy(423)At least seven ice ages have been recognized. At least four of them are considered significant because of the extent of their glaciation or because they lasted for an extremely long time:
* about 2 million years ago to the present—the Quaternary Ice Age
* 350 to 250 million years ago—the Karoo Ice Age
* 800 to 600 million years ago—the Cryogenian (or Sturtian-Varangian) Ice Age
* 2400 to 2100 million years ago—the Huronian Ice Age.
It seems you must buy books at the link you gave, seems to be a lot of profit garnered from religion!
How convenient for god to banish incest after Adam and Eve! I suppose you think we are close to Armageddon, correct me if I am in error. So many have told of the end times for countless centuries and we’re still here!
I do agree that humans are the perpetrators of all the hatred and war that has happened in history, however much of that was in the name of religion. I lean towards Buddhism as a more benign system of learning and enlightenment than the fire and brimstone of the Christian sects. To each their own and good luck to you in your’s.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:56 am
@lostatsea
It seems you must buy books at the link you gave, seems to be a lot of profit garnered from religion!
I referenced a non-profit organisation. The proceeds go towards maintaining the organisation and serving the people.
How convenient for god to banish incest after Adam and Eve!
Actually, He banished incest after Adam, Eve, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Jochebed, Amram and Moses…that’s over 2000 years by the way. What is convenient?
I suppose you think we are close to Armageddon, correct me if I am in error.
It’s not for us to know the day or the hour, yet we can recognise the signs and know that it is close. A day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. In other words, God is beyond time, yet from our perspective He may seem to tarry. God is simply giving humanity as much time as possible to turn to Him, hence why we’re still here.
I do agree that humans are the perpetrators of all the hatred and war that has happened in history, however much of that was in the name of religion.
If one decides to take a knife produced by Cool Cutlery Inc. which was made to cut vegatables and uses it to commit acts of murder, are they truly doing it in the name of Cool Cutlery Inc?
Therefore, if one invokes God and commits an atrocity against God’s will, is God responsible? Of course not. The charge lies with the individual.
Buddhism is interesting, yet from what do we come and to what do we go to? It’s end is annhilation, the complete destruction of the self, yet we instinctively seek to preserve our individuality. Buddhism doesn’t seem consistent with reality to me. Take for example reincarnation. If one is reincarnated as a flower, how does one be a “good flower” in order to move up in status? For a flower has no mind. If one is a dog, what constitutes being a “good dog” and by what or whom is this “goodness” judged? For dog’s have no concept of morality and are moved by instinct.
But as you said, each makes their own choice. I choose God and I also choose to use the Bible to express my choice. So I ask you not to try and silence my choice if it truly is “each to their own”
At least seven ice ages have been recognized.
Have you actually looked into how they define ice-ages? How they date them? I think you’ll find there is a lot of assumption involved. It seems almost providential that this very day I stumble on this article about how long glaciation can last:
http://www.icr.org/article/4777/
July 16th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Stizzy: The article states simply that the ice sheet breaks up more readily in deep water. Sunspot activity governs Earth’s climate and temperature and the glaciers will react to these changes.
Over the Earth’s long history, there have been a number of times when much of the northern hemisphere was covered by vast sheets of ice and snow. Such periods are known as ice ages. During ice ages, huge masses of slowly moving glacial ice—up to two kilometres (one mile) thick—scoured the land like cosmic bulldozers. At the peak of the last glaciation, about 20 000 years ago, approximately 97% of Canada was covered by ice.
It may seem hard to believe, but an ice age can occur if the average daily temperature drops by only a few degrees Celsius for an extensive period. Ice ages include colder and warmer fluctuations. During colder intervals, called glacial periods, glaciers and ice sheets grow and advance. (As the snow gets deeper and deeper, the lower portion turns to ice and its incredible weight makes the ice sheet flow across the land). In warmer intervals, known as interglacial periods, glaciers and ice sheets shrink and retreat.
The Earth is in an ice age now. It started about 2 million years ago and is known as the Quaternary Period. Despite the many warm periods since then, we identify the entire time as one ice age because of the continuous existence of at least one large ice sheet—the one over Antarctica. (The glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet are also of long standing, but they are more recent). We are currently enjoying a warm interval: our climate represents an interglacial period that began about 10 000 years ago. The preceding glacial period lasted about 80 000 years.
Too tired to comment further, so good night to you.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:45 am
I’m not denying and have not denied that ice-ages occur, simply that they have occured several times and have lasted thousands and thousands of years. The article states that given the right conditions, glaciers can melt rapidly in much shorter times than scientists say.
Whether we are in an ice-age or a warm period or not isn’t the point, the point is that it’s assumed we have experienced several ice-ages over thousands or millions of years. Did you actually read the articles in the other link I sent? It doesn’t seem like you did because you said:
It seems you must buy books at the link you gave
Despite the books displayed being Recommended Resources at the bottom of the list of articles, not compulsory reading.
I also find it hard to take scientists seriously concerning when we had ice ages and how long they were when they can’t even seem to agree whether global warming is happening or not and if it is even as dangerous as they say it is.
It is also ironic that there is so much doom and gloom about much of the earth being flooded as a result, yet a global flood several thousand years ago is out of the question.
Been nice talking to you, have a good night
July 16th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Great list! Thanks for publishing.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:40 am
i would like to see a list of misconceptions about judaism and jews soon
July 16th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Stacy Braswell: EXACTLY, and those Jews used the same OT the Protestants use.
Steelman:
Look at EVERY.SINGLE.EXAMPLE. of Jesus curing someone in the Bible. Did He heal them because of their good works, or because of their faith in Him?
Someone tell me how to do bold font on here already. test
**************************
How you ever get the idea of just “believing” in Jesus from the passages you quoted is beyond me. Tell me, how do you love God “with all your heart”?? How do you “love your neighbor”?? Do you just think about it?? NO! You can only love through acts and deeds.
**************************
This is you looking at the whole thing from a different angle than the “faith saves you” concept.
The “faith saves you” concept says that you must love God, and as a result of loving God, you will perform your works. This is EXPLICITLY AND EXACTLY what “faith without works is dead” means.
Say you get married to a woman and ten years into it, you fall out of love with her (which I think is ridiculous but I’m trying to illustrate my point so work with me).
You feel obligated to buy her flowers on Valentine’s Day, you feel obligated to take out the trash, fix her car when it’s broke, but you’re doing those because it is your duty to do those things, not because you are compelled by love to help your wife.
THAT is what “works save you” can lead to. So the call was out to love God at all times, and have that love compel you to do works.
Like that part about judging a tree by the fruit it produces. It all starts with what the tree is like on the inside.
It’s not that hard to understand.
***************************
Jesus called us to BOTH believe and ACT. James reiterates this by saying “faith without works is dead.” Faith without acts of love and charity is indeed meaningless.
***************************
Because if you proclaim faith and then you don’t do things to help people, you do not have real faith in Jesus, since His whole purpose was to tell all of us to love each other.
Again, “faith saves” isn’t saying “works aren’t needed”, it says that “faith must compel your works”.
*****************************
As for the Eucharist, your tradition of seeing it only “consuming the Word” appeared with John Calvin and the rest of the Protestant movement in the 1550’s. Prior to that, all Christians believed it is act of actually consuming Jesus body and blood. Not only does John 6 support that it is indeed Jesus’ true body, but the greek word used for eat in the text is “trogo”, which means to actually chew or gnaw using your mouth. Scripture means what it says, so stop trying to use mental gymnastics to get around it.
*********************************
More on your take on things being literal in a moment, all I can really say is that I disagree with your take on this. Doesn’t mean I can’t stand you or I think you’re a bad Christian. Although I don’t know if that same opinion is shared towards me from your end.
*********************************
One of the problems of Protestant methods of study is text proofing, which causes you to pull passages out of context from the whole of the letter or from the whole of Scripture. It ruins or twists the meaning and teaching. Your statement about calling the Pope “father” supports this claim. Read the whole letter again, not just the passage and see what Jesus is trying to say. If you take it literally, as you seem to be doing, then we are all in a bind, and thus sinning, because we all call our biological fathers “father”. We all call our school teachers “teacher”. Knowing this as well as the fact that Paul explicitly refers to himself as “father” to Timothy must mean that your conclusion is wrong. Why don’t you do the homework to figure it out.
******************************************
See, here is what I meant in my last statement. Up there ^ Jesus LITERALLY meant to eat the crackers and drink the wine as it was His body.
But when He literally says “Call no man ‘father’” and tells his followers to believe in God and to obey His (Jesus’) teachings and not to let any man come and put a twist on it to gain power over them in His name (hmmm!!), then you can’t really take it at face value.
Got it.
And I don’t call my dad my “father” since the Bible says not to call a man “father”. I call him “dad” or “daddy” or “poppa” or “pimptastic”. My dad takes care of me here; our Father is in heaven.
And when I point out that Paul disobeyed an order from Christ in regard to calling someone “father”, you assume that it means that I am wrong, as opposed to, you know, Paul doing something he wasn’t supposed to do.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am
@Stizzy(446)Quote@423 ‘Actually, the creationist position is that the ice age was a consequence of the Global Flood, and that there was only one ice-age. And neanderthal man was fully human but simply a genetic variation, as after the blood, humanity would’ve been driven into a bottleneck which would result in rapid mutation. They were no less intelligent than we are.’ If you had watched the doc I posted, you would realize they were adapted to a cold environment and due to a smaller vocal cord speech would have been difficult. The shorter legs and smaller ear canal also made them more clumsy than the more agile homo sapiens which emerged from Africa. @436 I suggest readnig this article on “religious myths: I did and found errors in the dating of the Mithraic religion as to dates: Encyclopedia Britannica;Beginning with Darius (522–486), the Persian kings of the Achaemenid dynasty were Zoroastrians. But Darius and his successors did not intend to create political difficulties by attempting to eradicate the old beliefs still dear to the heart of many nobles. Thus, the religion of Zoroaster was gradually contaminated with elements of the old, polytheistic worship. Hymns (the Yashts) were composed in honour of the old gods. There is a Yasht dedicated to Mithra, in which the god is depicted as the all-observing god of heavenly light, the guardian of oaths, the protector of the righteous in this world and the next, and, above all, as the archfoe of the powers of evil and darkness—hence, the god of battles and victory. Mithras was the religion of the Roman legions, a vast army(pardon the pun) of believers, so it seems more than probable that the Roman rulers would meld the old with the new.
As to global warming I tend to agree with the over 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory, however I strongly believe we must stop the pollution and degredation of our planet. We have so many alternatives to fossil fuels but we are held captive by corporate greed. I do commend you on your bible knowledge and I apologize for any rudeness I may have committed in the past.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:24 am
you would realize they were adapted to a cold environment and due to a smaller vocal cord speech would have been difficult. The shorter legs and smaller ear canal also made them more clumsy than the more agile homo sapiens which emerged from Africa.
But this doesn’t seem to gel with recent scientific study which suggests they would not have had difficulties with speech and that some physical differences may have been due to genetic deformalities.
We have people today who may not be the best speakers, be shorter and more clumsy than others, but we do not consider them less ingelligent or less human.
And indeed, in what way were neanderthal “adapted for cold”? Didn’t they wear clothing? It is due to human ingenuity that we can adapt to most environments without needing to be a different kind of creature. One could say the inuit are adapted to the cold, but they are no less human than we.
I did and found errors in the dating of the Mithraic religion as to dates
But did you find anything that failed to show that the Bible is not based on previous myths?
The Bible, afterall, portrays a history that shows that everyone had (and continues to have) knowledge of the living God and also that they would have been aware of the coming messiah and that He would be born of a virgin.
Ie. Her Seed
When in the usual context, it was the man who produced the “seed”.
So it would seem there was a basis for all other religions to build upon. Afterall, scripture says that Jesus’ mission was established from the beginning.
In fact, you can even glean this prophecy from the geneologies of Adam to Noah by looking at their name meanings:
Adam – Man(is)
Seth – Appointed
Enosh – Mortal
Kenan – Sorrow(but)
Mahalalel – The Blessed God
Jared – Shall come down
Enoch – Teaching
Methuselah – His death shall bring
Lamech – The Despairing
Noah – Comfort, Rest
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow, (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring the desparing comfort, rest.
And we know all of these men would predate all other mythologies, as Noah was the last surviving patriarch (excluding his sons) from the old world.
I commend you for your diligant searching and I hope you do find what you need to find
If I have ever been rude, it was never my intention. I also agree that we must do everything to preserve our planet, as we were placed over it to be responsible for it and it is our home. May we all endeavour to do our individual parts to this end.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:03 am
@Stizzy(451) Good morning! Did not get much sleep this morning (2hrs), the internet is so addicting! I came upon an extremely interesting doc:
History of the Federal Reserve (Money Masters) it traces the history of the money changers from when Jesus drove them out. It seems strange that America, supposed to be one under God would allow a private bank to control its money and by extension its govt. and the populace.
In regards to other creation legends please check Nanabush the legend of the Ojibwa. Amen to your last statement.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
God is omnipotent right? All powerful diety that can do anything. So can god create something more powerful than himself? If so then he won’t be the most powerful entity anymore. If he can’t create something more powerful then himself then that is something he can’t do which defeats the omnipotent theory.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
The whole point of having unlimited power is that nothing is more than the unlimited. It is inexhaustable. Omnipotent afterall means unlimited power, so in effect your question is a silly question.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
It also means All Powerful in Latin. By creating beings that have free will he actually limits his power. We have the power to resist god and choose not to obey and follow. If we have to power to do this to our creator then he does not have absolute power.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Stizzy U need to stop acting like your a scholar who knows everything! Please! Your just a guy sitting down typing messages on a forum where 12 year old’s also post, so stop acting like you are a catholic scholar. Anytime anyone makes any remarks regarding the catholic church, it is suddenly wrong? I guess you are the only one with the correct interpretation huh? Get off your high horse.
You and I know both Jesus is not GOD? How can God pray to himself genius? God is supposed to be all knowing, yet jesus was not all-knowing numerous times in the bible. What is he a lesser god?? If he is the son of god, that makes him a lesser god huh? be serious. The days Jesus was dead before resurrection, did God also die, if not, then they CANNOT BE EQUAL. Stop trying to make things more than what it is!
July 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@lostatsea:
Interesting story, but few similarities to the biblical account
it seems more like it could have been a distant memory that had become distorted, there are many.
One such story of interest is this one:
http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-according-miao-people/
July 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Scholars been asking that question for years.
Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity’s power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock. This question cannot be answered using formal logic due to its self-referential nature.
Augustine, in his City of God, argued that a deity could not do anything that would make it non-omnipotent:
“For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent.”
Thus Augustine argued that a deity could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect limit the omnipotence of itself.
So that is also something that god can’t do. He can’t limit his power
But you say its a silly question.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@jerrygadsen:
I’ve not professed to be a scholar of any kind, neither do I claim to know everything. But of what I do believe I know, I try to express to the best of my ability. How can I be anything else but a guy typing on a forum? Afterall here I am, sitting down…typing on a forum. What is your point?
I’m not a Catholic scholar, I’m not even catholic
Do you actually have a rational or logical argument against anything that I’ve said or are you just going to resort to an irrelevant ad hominem attack?
I answered questions about Jesus praying to God further up, feel free to read it
Jesus lived as a man, and therefore even though He could use His power to know all things, He chose not to exercise this power. Similarly, God chooses to forget past sins due to Jesus’ sacrifice. This is not inconsistent.
Jesus’ physical body died on the Cross, not the Spirit. God is Spirit and therefore cannot die. It’s really not that complicated
It is in the spiritual sense that Jesus is God afterall.
Hope that answers your querie.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
It also means All Powerful in Latin. By creating beings that have free will he actually limits his power. We have the power to resist god and choose not to obey and follow. If we have to power to do this to our creator then he does not have absolute power.
The Bible wasn’t written in Latin.
He does not limit His power by creating creatures that have free will. He simply does not exercise His power to control what they do, otherwise this would not be free will.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
458 Someone: Of course he would say it a silly question, he’s a scholar after all!!(not)
July 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it?
Can a computer programmer program a virtual rock so heavy that the computer programmer can’t lift it?
It’s a silly question because the programmer is not part of the program. He does not operate and is not subject to the laws that govern the program.
That said, I’m sure there were rocks that Jesus was unable to physically lift
So that is also something that god can’t do. He can’t limit his power
One who has limitless reserves of power is able to draw from as much as they will to.
God indeed does limit Himself in particular instances such as when He spoke to Moses so that Moses wouldn’t die. Does this mean He is not powerful? No, it means He has full control over His power.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Jesus lived as a man, and therefore even though He could use His power to know all things, He chose not to exercise this power. Similarly, God chooses to forget past sins due to Jesus’ sacrifice. This is not inconsistent.
Any power that he obtained was by God, so evidently God didn’t give him the power to know all things. That above statement is just YOUR interpretation, nothing more. In my opinion, You are totally wrong about most of your observations regarding peoples comments. How do you know what powers Jesus chose to exercise or not, where you his disciple? Give me a break.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Can a computer programmer program a virtual rock so heavy that the computer programmer can’t lift it?
It’s a silly question because the programmer is not part of the program. He does not operate and is not subject to the laws that govern the program.
ANYTHING THAT HE CANT ANSWER IS, “SILLY”
Give me a break will ya.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Any power that he obtained was by God, so evidently God didn’t give him the power to know all things. That above statement is just YOUR interpretation, nothing more. In my opinion, You are totally wrong about most of your observations regarding peoples comments. How do you know what powers Jesus chose to exercise or not, where you his disciple? Give me a break.
On what basis do you say that this isn’t what He done? It is a matter of inference. And it is not simply MY interpretation. Scripture interprets scripture and all scripture must be read in the correct context. This is how you do proper biblical analysis.
And as you’ve stated, it is simply your opinion and you have not provided an actual argument for why I’m wrong. Therefore your statement is arbitrary.
ANYTHING THAT HE CANT ANSWER IS, “SILLY”
Give me a break will ya.
Do you actually have a logical and rational argument?
July 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
@Stizzy (462):
Can a computer programmer program a virtual rock so heavy that the computer programmer can’t lift it?
It’s a silly question because the programmer is not part of the program. He does not operate and is not subject to the laws that govern the program.
Jerrygadsen mentioned a physical rock but you come back with a mythical one. Sorry, Stizzy but that just proved his point.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Jerrygadsen mentioned a physical rock but you come back with a mythical one. Sorry, Stizzy but that just proved his point.
Not really, I was using an analogy to show that he started from wrong presuppositions.
God is not a physical being yet a rock is a physical thing. God is not bound by laws of physics as the rock is.
Similarly, a computer programmer is not the same as a virtual rock and is not bound by the laws of a virtual world.
So how did it prove his point?
July 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@oouchan (466): Actually I brought up that question but it was a question I heard many times before, including in a world religions class. I think it brings up a good paradox.
July 16th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@Stizzy (467):
Then if he is not a physical being he can’t pick up the rock. We can apply science to all but god because he’s not physical? That makes zero sense.
What I am trying to say is that part of what you are saying isn’t helping you….not in the slightest. Continuing along might hurt your the point you are trying to make.
There is no need for you to constantly defend. By doing so, you get more like the above trying to bait you. Even I jumped in again. Just sayin’.
@someone else (468): It does only because you get a circular thinking in both directions. Very interesting.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Debating the existence of God seems to stray from the original topic of this post. Nonetheless, a lot of opinions have been voiced–pro, con, right, wrong.
For me, whether or not a person aspires to religious beliefs is a personal matter, and I’m of the old school that didn’t discuss race, religion or politics — at least with total strangers.
So, breaking my own rule, I’m reminded of a story.
An elderly lady regularly attended Sunday services at her congregation. Every Sunday, in fact, she would show up, regardless of the weather–hot or cold, rain or shine, sleet or snow.
One particularly cold Sunday drew only about half of the regular number of churchgoers. The minister, who conducted the service, felt the woman’s faith was inspirational. Much younger people, in far better health, failed to show up. Yet, there the woman sat in the front row, with her walker next to her, looking old and frail, yet full of joyous anticipation.
When the service ended, the crowd began to exit through the door near the front of the church to the downstairs hall where the traditional after-services Sunday breakfast was served.
The minister stopped the old woman and said, “here it is the coldest day of the year, and people decades younger than you were discouraged from coming to church. You must have tremendous faith!”
The old woman answered, “no, I lost my faith years ago. All this religion stuff is a fairy tale.”
Shocked, the minister stammered, “then why do you come every Sunday?”
As she walked past him, the old woman winked and said, “why, for the free pancakes and sausages!”
Moral:
Religion is what you get from it.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I’ll be honest, this is a touchy topic, even Barack Obama is intrigued about this topic…..
July 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
@ Rahim. You’ve made few mistakes in your statement m8. First of all Buddhism in its true form is NOT a religion, you cannot categorize it under any ”-ism”. However it’s true that in most parts of the global ”Buddhist communities”, people (Even the so called, Buddhists themselves) has perceived it as a religion. Which is a shame really, because Buddha never preached that he’s our savior or that he’s the son of God or even that the destiny of a person is in the hands of an all knowing deity. True Buddhism or pure Buddhism, is all about self purification. He has only shown the path, it’s up to the person to decide whether he’s going to follow. Buddhists (yeah the real ones;P) only worship Buddha to show RESPECT for showing us this noble path(Not expecting anything whatsoever in return). Can somebody please do a list for 10 Misconceptions about Buddhism please? THank you. ;P
July 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@Stizzy(457) I mentioned Nanabush to show that there are many legends regarding creation and flooding. There were probably so many more but for the destruction carried out by the Catholic Church in its zeal to wipe out anything it dsclared heresy or idolatry.
Night all
It was not alone as we observed recently the destruction of the two statues of Buddha by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
@Skrillah(472) Thank you for pointing out Buddhism is simply a path towards self enlightenment and respect for all life.
@oouchan(466) I remember commenting that Stizzy made me dizzy on creation and schools, it all goes back to God did it!
July 16th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Then if he is not a physical being he can’t pick up the rock. We can apply science to all but god because he’s not physical? That makes zero sense.
This doesn’t mean He can’t influence the physical, afterall it is He who is upholding the very laws of nature that govern the rock.
Similarly, these laws of nature, like laws of logic, like mathematics and information, are not physical entities. We can infer God’s existence through applying science but because He cannot be physically seen or physically touched, He is beyond empirical testing.
Does that make more sense?
And yes I understand what you’re saying
I don’t have to answer every querie although it is part of my belief that I should always be ready to give a reason for my belief when asked.
@lostatsea:
Oh yes I’m very well aware there are many legends regarding creation and flooding, and I think it is for that very reason that it is so interesting. Why are there so many legends about creation and flooding?
I think the Catholic Church, in a way, may have stubbed it’s own foot in trying to eradicate all these other legends, as they may have all pointed towards the biblical account in some way.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
But yes, if you will permit me, let me try and settle this particular debate as I don’t believe I argued my point adequetely enough.
The word “omnipotent” itself is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred most likely from one of His titles, “Almighty”. However, the Bible specifically says that there are things God cannot do. He cannot commit sin and He cannot lie. So in biblical terms, omnipotence doesn’t mean He can do all things, because He cannot do anything contrary to His nature.
What He can do is anything He determines to do, and this is the meaning of omnipotence.
Since an all powerful being will always be able to do what He determines to do, it’s impossible for Him to fail. Yet, someone else’s argument was that if God is all powerful, He can do anything including fail. This is like saying that because God is all powerful, He can be not all powerful which is illogical.
God can create a rock of tremendous size, yet He will always be able to lift it because He is all powerful. Therefore the Bible makes it clear that God is able to do anything He wants to do, but failing is not part of omnipotence. Nothing He wants to do is too difficult.
The problem is that in the argument against God, the meaning of “omnipotence” is distorted to prove He doesn’t exist or isn’t omnipotent. Doing what is impossible or having the ability to fail isn’t part of omnipotence. Therefore, it is an illogical argument.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:52 am
There are so many convenient inaccuracies in this list that it’s laughable. I suspect that the author and the researches of this particular list are also Catholic, because it’s bias and half-information are readily apparent. Sorry, but this document is one of the worst lists on here. I hope more research and accuracy is given to other lists on this site, because I find it extremely informative and entertaining. However, if this is any indication of the level of trust we can place in all the information on here, I’m afraid I will have lost a great deal of trust in it’s value.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:39 am
@IHopeNobodyPutsTooMuchWeightIntoThisList (476): You don’t just open your mouth and start throwing out accusations without some facts to back up your assertions. Give me specific examples where this list is factually inaccurate. Either that or shut the hell up. C’mon lets hear it, or are you just blowing hot air outta your ass?
July 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am
oww you forgot ‘every bishop/priest is a child molester’
(yup, im jsut waiting for this to be flamed :] )
July 17th, 2009 at 7:24 am
annnnd. no 476,
all you know about catholisism comes from the book angels and demons..so stuff you!
July 17th, 2009 at 10:54 am
In the middle ages there were bibles and Mass not in Latin. That was do to the fall of hte Roman Empire. The Byzantines would go north in Europe to convert and use the comman language of the area. The Roman’s going out to convert would use Latin and have a harder time converting with Latin then even going dead.
Catholics don’t worship Mary and hte saints. We pray to them and ask them to take our prayers to God on our behalf in addition to praying to God on our own. It’s like in chess you back up your pieces before going to attack hte king. praying to the saints and Mary gives more ’support’ if you will to our pray. Not to forget that they are in Heaven and definately more perfect so there is the better chance of our request being listened to. Statues are like pictures, you have pictures of your family to remember them once they are gone, statues are the same they remind us of the people.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Let me try explaining our love and respect for Mary in another way.
First, she is Jesus’ mother. That alone makes her a better person than any one of us could even try to be. Don’t we aim to be like our heroes? Jesus is the ultimate hero for all of us, but that is not to say we can’t and don’t have other heroes.
Second, let’s look at the Gospels. John 19:25-27
* 25 * Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. * 26 * When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,”* 27 * and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
We take this passage as Jesus giving the Church his mother as our mother. And the Ten Commandments says “Honor thy Father and thy Mother”. Thus, the Church considers Mary as her Mother and loves her as such.
It isn’t the easiest thing in the world to understand, but it’s something beautiful when you do. Afterall, God wouldn’t have chosen any girl of the street for his Son.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz….huh..what…oh, wake me up when this is over. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
July 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
It’s weird how the list on Misconceptions of Islam is categorized as controversial but this list isn’t.
July 18th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Google:
History of the Federal Reserve (Money Masters)
From Jesus chasing the money changers from the temple up to the creation of the central banks which now control our governments and by extension us!
It’s a long documentary 3 1/2 hrs. but it will open your eyes(I hope)!
There are many ways to exert control over the masses, one is money the other is religion.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Becky, do me a favor… Can u please watch the video posted on comment 422 and leave your feedback, I would like to see your perspective on this, with all due respect. Thanks.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that-
“This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.
“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”
This goes back to the bible stating that God gave man ‘dominion over the Earth and its inhabitants’ That is the start of the problems we now face. The pagan and native beliefs understood our relationship with the world around us, sadly we destroyed these values.
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html
The agenda of the UN.
July 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Now, we must not confound residence with residents like some people do when coming to religion and its followers.
Catholicism is not a religion but a religious confession,
e.g., christians of catholic confession; of protestant confession; of spiritist confession, etc… Otherwise, who would claim exclusiveness on GOD and JESUS? Only Christianism!
Hail.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
@mastermind357 (485): I watched the beginning of the clip, I just don’t have 45 minutes to watch it all. First of all, the intro music was pretty, but kind of creepy. I absolutely cannot agree with this view. If you were hoping for an outburst, I’m sorry to disappoint.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
488 Becky: Why would I be hoping for an outburst? If you remember our previous discussions you will see that I never came off disrespectful or anything of that nature. The video(top 10) is actually about 20 mins, the rest of the video is just talking, etc. You just seemed to be intelligent from the past convo that we had and I assumed that this video would be very informative showing you the perspective that many people have concerning why Jesus is not God. If your faith in the catholic church is strong like I believe it is, the video will not “shake” your faith, just look at it as educational, at least you’ll learn the belief of other faiths and why they have this perspective.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’m not addressing this comment to anyone in particular, but can you all give me your opinion on a question that I’ve always wondered? When it comes to religious belief, why do people not want to learn in detail about the faiths of others? How can you “believe” that your faith is right, and others are wrong? How? For example, if you are born catholic, why would you not want to learn the views of protestant christians, muslims, and jews etc? Most people are only the religion they are now because their parents and/or family are, or because they live in a nation that are primarily christian or hindu for example. Me personally, I love to learn about others beliefs. If most people had no influence growing up about the religion they are now, they probably would be part of another religion. I know for myself, I grew up a christian(non-denominational) and I always believed I was right and every other religion had to be wrong(that was all I knew) However, once I became an adult and studied the history and found unheard of contradictions within the religion, I felt it was my duty as an ADULT to at least see what else is out there. I figured on judgment day, what if i am wrong? What can I say then? I then learned about different beliefs until I chose what i felt was best, not what my parents and grandparents thought were best. The sad part is that many people are born and die with the same belief, without even trying to learn anything else, how stupid is that? Please leave your feedback, I would like to hear your opinions on the subject.
July 18th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
My father was catholic and went to a catholic school where the nuns would tell them the stories from the bible and the way the were supposed to interpret them. They wou;dn’t allow them to read the stories on their own and were told that if they interpreted it any other way was a sin.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
491 Zoe: Did your father stay a catholic over the years, just wondering?
July 18th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@Moonbeam (222): “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.”
Hi Moonbeam. Before I answer this and one other thing (below), let me say I appreciate the respectful tone of your questions. These may have been answered by someone else, but 222 comments was all I had patience for.
I may go back and read the rest, but … later, I think.
Anyway, the celibacy of priests is not intended to send the message that the Church thinks sex is wrong. The Church heartily approves of sex within the context of marriage.
The Church does, however, view both priesthood and marriage (both ordination and marriage are once-in-a-lifetime Sacraments) as vocations; literally, a calling by God to lead a particular life. A vocation, by definition, is more than what the secular world might define as a career. It requires a dedication to a calling which requires a higher level of focus and discipline. Attempting to fully satisfy the needs of both means that one or the other would get the short end of the stick.
That means there are three options to live life as a Catholic as the Church defines it: Live an ordinary celibate life as a single person (sex outside of marriage is a no-no, just like the Bible said); live a celibate life as a priest (or religious) while devoting your mental, physical, and spiritual energies to your calling; or live a life in faithful sexuality to your spouse, devoting your energies to him/her and your family.
“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.”
I think where you’re getting hung up here, and this happens to a lot of non-Catholics, is that there are different connotations of the word “pray” between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants define prayer as strictly an act of worship, meant for God alone; Catholics define prayer more broadly as a means of spiritual communication.
Catholics can and do pray directly to God all the time. We believe strongly in the power of prayer, as do many Protestants (of which I was one until just a couple years ago). We pray all the doggone time to God both in Mass, and privately.
But we also ask our friends and family to pray to God for us, especially in times of crisis or anxiety, just as Protestants do. And when they do us the favor of praying for us, it is called intercessory prayer (they intercede, or pray to God on our behalf). And since the saints who have since passed from earth are not really dead but alive in Heaven, we ask them to pray for us too. We “pray” (communicate spiritually) to the saints to “pray” (again, communicate spiritually) to God on our behalf. We believe that the saints are closer to God in a spiritual way, which is borne out because they are in Heaven, after all, and thus are more likely to have God’s ear, so to speak. As it says in James 5:16, “the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.”
The analogy that I hear most often is this: suppose you want a job at a particular company. Yes, you have to apply for the job, and hand in your resume. You may even be fortunate enough to interview with someone. But you could also ask a friend who already works there to put in a good word for you to the hiring manager, as well. After all, your friend already has an “in” with the folks in charge there.
I hope that helps answer your questions.
July 19th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Great List. Your objectivity and critical way of putting it is excellent. Too bad not many people can achieve that.
This discussion has “summarized” basically two years of an intensive Theory of Knowlege course. Ethics is such a complex matter. People who remain within their own paradigms about what is true and what is not, what should we listen to and what should we not never achieve valid arguments. It is safe to say “I don’t believe in God” but going to the extent of saying “God doesn’t exist at all” is just…biased, egocentristic…you put a name to it. Just as saying “God exists for everyone”, well it doesn’t if you get inside people’s minds.
About critisizing the Catholic Church, or the Government, or anything like that…Its a very simple thing to do. I have done it several times. But at the end of the day…I don’t think I would do a better job if it was me the one in charge of running the country or taking a chastity vow. Perhaps it would be fairer to leave the critisizing to someone who who knows what it is like and who has overcome it without making a single flaw …If such person exists at all.
Once again, thanks for the effort you put on this list and on the whole site. It’s awesome.
July 19th, 2009 at 2:41 am
@FATSEXY (449): “Say you get married to a woman and ten years into it, you fall out of love with her (which I think is ridiculous but I’m trying to illustrate my point so work with me).
You feel obligated to buy her flowers on Valentine’s Day, you feel obligated to take out the trash, fix her car when it’s broke, but you’re doing those because it is your duty to do those things, not because you are compelled by love to help your wife.
What I’m getting from this is, if you don’t “feel the love” then it doesn’t count. But that’s not true, as anyone who has been married for a long time can attest.
I love my wife, and always will. But there have been times when I’m mad at her, exasperated with her, and I only do things for her because it forestalls arguments (and I’m sure she’s had the same feeling about me from time to time). No, at those times I don’t “feel” love for her, but if you tried to argue with me even at those down times that I didn’t love her, you’d be in for quite a fight.
If I truly didn’t love her, I know exactly what I would do. I’d just pick up and leave, and never look back. The opposite of love isn’t hate or anger, it’s apathy. Deep down, I always care about her, even when I don’t “feel” terribly in love.
As a Presbyterian minister I know once said, “Love is a verb, not a noun. It is the action you take, not a feeling you have.”
Sometimes I am overwhelmed with a feeling of love for God, and other times not so much. Any Christian who says otherwise is being dishonest with himself. But even in the not-so-much times, as long as I am doing what Christ asked because He asked (and not because I want to make a show of it to others), I am still demonstrating love, even if it’s a grumbling obedience. Matthew 25 described exactly what those things are. As it explains there, you can call on God’s name all day long but if you’re not feeding the hungry and clothing the naked and whatnot, Christ is gonna disclaim any knowledge of you at the very moment when it matters.
Short answer, actions count.
“But when He literally says “Call no man ‘father’” and tells his followers to believe in God and to obey His (Jesus’) teachings and not to let any man come and put a twist on it to gain power over them in His name (hmmm!!), then you can’t really take it at face value.
Got it.”
When you look at the entirety of the context, Jesus is talking about the scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem who would teach one thing but not live according to the teachings. He told His disciples that whatever the scribes and Pharisees taught, they were to observe and do, because they occupied the chair of Moses; but not to follow their actions, because they placed heavy burdens on their fellow man but wouldn’t do anything to help them with it. Jesus explained that the works they did were for appearances’ sake, to gain accolades and to be lauded as a great teacher.
At which point He says, basically, don’t be that guy.
The scribes and Pharisees had created a cult of personality and self-importance around themselves, and the whole admonition to “call no man father” was a reminder to keep the focus on God and not on the person teaching. It wasn’t a legalistic admonition to avoid the words “father” and “teacher.”
The whole chapter, when you get right down to it, is more of a diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees who were like “whited sepulchres” – pretty on the outside, but full of death and filth on the inside. Folks who would nitpick at technical minor matters of law all day long but leave the important big-picture stuff, like justice and mercy and faith, by the wayside. “These guys have been getting away with murder, literally and figuratively,” says Jesus, “and I’m about to let loose on them.”
July 19th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Whether God exists or not, it is nothing worth debating. Let us all live our lives as we see fit, in goodness… be that religiously, or without religion, and with tolerance of others.
Cheers! xD
July 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am
@ 496 ..Come on now, we don’t wanna live in a world that boring ,,do we? don’t mind her atheists and holy people, continue with the mindless blabber,,
July 19th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@uni (5): whats there to say? the atheists aren’t an organized religion and anything you say probably applies to at least one of them. Which isn’t to say atheists are bad people. you could say the same about christians but christians and muslims have an organized religion and teachings so you point out if it is a misconception about the religion not the people
July 19th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
#3 is misleading. I am Eastern Catholic. Even in the Eastern Catholic churches, men who are already priests cannot GET married after ordination. However, men who are already married CAN be ordained to the priesthood. Eastern Catholic priests can BE married, if they were married first. Married priests cannot become bishops. Episcopalian/Anglican priests who are married, who convert to Catholicism, can remain priests. However, and unmarried Episcopalian/Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism and retains his priesthood, cannot later get married.
July 19th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Very Informative I did like it very much. I see Islam is is being defended. How many Islamist protested 9/11 in there home country, how many denounce publicly here In the United States or attacks on our allies or our troops. As far as running down Islam I don’t It’s not my religion I choose not to accept it. If Muslims want peace protest in your home countries. I have yet too see a peace loving Muslim/Islamist protest and denounce Violence. How many Christains do you see blowing up ciites and taking hundreds of lives. Good artical It opend my eyes to things I did not know. to bad we can’t just agree to disagree and be done with it.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Your first statement in 8. “In fact, Catholics are the first Christians.” is not really correct in that the Roman Catholic church broke away from the status quo from about 350AD where all bishops were considered equal.
This power shift was later accelerated by a fraudulent document “The Donation of Constantine” which claimed that the Emperor Constantine gave the bishop of Rome supreme authority over all Europe.
So in spite of some confusion the Eastern orthodox churches have more claim to the title “…first Christians”.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
well the bible is a storybook about a zombie jew and being gay isnt normal because it is instinctual for humans to reproduce. next time u see a pregnant dude who hasnt had a sex change let me know. any other questions?
July 20th, 2009 at 1:37 am
@ (490) mastermind357:
I find it very frustrating that (particularly with Christians) people are unwilling to learn about other beliefs. Really, I believe it actually goes against scripture and isn’t helpful.
Me personally, I’m very interested in learning about other beliefs because I like to know more about the people I’m interacting with, how they came to believe what they believe and why they believe it. Dialogue of this kind is very important. For example, I’ve extensively studied Islam and am very fascinated by it.
It’s been an incredible journey for me to learn about it and I’ve discovered much about myself and my beliefs. For example, I used to come across a lot of “Muhammad is a demon possessed paedophile” talk and quotes from various verses of the Quran, yet when actually looking into this stuff, I found that there were verses either taken out of context or that Muhammad was being looked at through 21st century eyes. Furthermore, you find that some accusations can be levelled right back at your belief.
It’s also important to know what other people believe in terms of defending your own belief. You may not want to say, attack other peoples beliefs but I think it’s important to know what they believe and how they look at the world so that you know how to answer them about why you believe differently.
The Apostle Paul was very good at this. In the book of Acts and in his letters, you see him describe his approach where became like “a Jew to the Jew, a Gentile to the Gentiles” etc. In the sense that he lived among and got to know the people he was trying to reach so that he could meet them where they were at. You see him look into the culture and religion of the Greeks before he spoke to them about Jesus so he could do so in a way they would understand.
Put simply, you can’t expect to go to a foreign country and expect the people to just know your language and customs. It’s ignorant, it’s arrogant and it’s foolish. You have to learn about them whilst they learn about you.
I also think not interacting causes prejudice to increase and dihumanises those who are different from you in your mind.
If most people had no influence growing up about the religion they are now, they probably would be part of another religion.
I disagree with this because it’s pretty much impossible to test. Everyone is influenced by something, and certain things that aren’t even religious may influence a religious decision.
That said, I can speak of my own personal journey. I grew up with a Christian mother and an Atheist father. Generally, my father didn’t try and stop us being taught Christianity or going to church and he would even come along for holidays or special occasions.
I had no problem with my upbringing and nor did I question it until I entered adolescence. It was at this point I became bored with church and would inquire why I had to go. Essentially I was forced to which drove me further away to the point where I hated church and refused to go.
Now, despite being taught about evolution in school and having an interest in everything from ufo’s to the paranormal, I never questioned the existence of God. This just seemed obvious to me, religion or not.
Now in the years following, I entered into various periods of returning to and drifting away from church, but it was always on my own terms. It’s only been in the last 2 years that I have found myself serious and stable, and I believe now that the reason I didn’t have this before is that I didn’t know why I believed what I did. I accepted it, but essentially it was an irrational belief I couldn’t justify and no one gave me any reason to within the church.
This I had to find on my own more or less through intense study. I won’t go into everything here (although if anyone is interested in knowing more detail I don’t mind correspondance), but I will say that I am certain of whay I belief not only because of what the Bible says and my personal experiences of the supernatural, but because when I look at reality, at life and at the universe, I find that Jesus (not christianity) is the only thing that justifies it all. It all only seems consistent when viewed in association with all He is. It seems to be the only consistently rational and logical world view that can account for all I see, in the sense that everything else seems to be inconsistent.
When it comes to my eternal destiny, I can’t afford to settle for uncertainty, I wish to pursue that absolute truth.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Oh, I will also add that I think one of the reasons Christians are dismissive of other religions (and in the past have sought to eradicate them by force), is that those individuals are not firmly rooted in Jesus, are fearful and have doubts about what they believe. They lack faith AND reason.
It’s much easier to stick your fingers in your eyes and go “lalalalala!!” or just sucker punch the opposition than actually learn about them and see how what you believe stands up to their scrutiny.
Yet, the Bible says to work out your salvation with reverence and humilty. Learn like a child with no guile, no agenda, but with a transparent pursuit of truth. It’s like being a butterfly seeking to emerge from it’s cacoon. If someone came along and cut it open, they may think they are “helping” the butterfly, yet that struggle to emerge is what gives it strength. So once it emerges, it will be too weak to survive.
Again, it’s like an immune system that is never exposed to alien agents. It’s essentially a weak immune system. Isolation may offer protection, but only as long as you remain in your bubble and none of us really lives in a bubble even though some try to carry theirs with them where ever they go.
I think my view point is best summed up by the apostle Peter. When several disciples deserted Jesus because of a teaching they didn’t understand (about eating His body and drinking His blood), Jesus asked the 12 if they were going to leave Him as well, to which Peter responded “To whom shall we go? You alone have the truth” Such was their confidence in Jesus that they were certain that even the most difficult and confusing things would make sense eventually if they stuck by Him.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:10 am
@Stizzy (503): I’m pretty sure that to be strictly logical someone magically turning water to wine raises a lot more questions than it answers…
July 20th, 2009 at 2:55 am
@ Mark:
How would you define “strictly logical”?
I would say it depends on one’s starting assumptions. If one assumes the existence of God, the event is perfectly logical within their world-view. If one assumes naturalism and materialism and God doesn’t exist, it may seem illogical to them.
What questions do you think it raises and why does it raise them?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:17 am
@Stizzy (506): Logic is weighing up the facts and acting rationally accordingly.
I was raised by parents who could care less about Mr Jebus, but I did do RE in primary school and I did believe in the aforementioned figure until the age of 12 or 13.
My starting assumption was that God existed. However, I looked at the facts – more specifically of course empirical evidence – and decided that I really didn’t think that Christianity cut it, nor did their definition of God.
Unless you think that God is the one who’s reall keeping you alive and there’s no need for that oxygen you’re breathing or water you’re drinking than you believe in matter holding some qualities – it would be a stretch to call this physicalism of any variety, but it is akin. If so, what do you pick out to believe about matter? Because if you believe even a quarter of the chemistry I do, you’d see that JC couldn’t have just waved his hand and created wine molecules from water, it just doesn’t happen that way.
Where does the physical become false and God real? Where do your beliefs in science halt and your beliefs in God take over? If someone scientifically proved that we can explain everything in terms of physical matter, would you still hold your spiritual beliefs?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:42 am
@Mark:
I would say logic is a system of reasoning. Philosophically, it is analysing inference. Generally, it is the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation. This field or situation could apply to ones world-view.
My starting assumption was that God existed. However, I looked at the facts – more specifically of course empirical evidence – and decided that I really didn’t think that Christianity cut it, nor did their definition of God.
See, you assumed God existed, but you also assumed that all things can be known empirically. If assume God exists, you cannot assume empiricism, naturalism and materialism at the same time. For example, one cannot even empirically prove the existence of logic. You have to presuppose logic before you can even logically argue it’s existence and justify your assumption. God, by nature, cannot be proven via empirical evidence as He is Spirit and beyond the physical. So if you assume He exists, you must all assume naturalism, materialism and empiricism are not true.
If you start with an inconsistent philosophy, you’re going to reach inconsistent conclusions.
Unless you think that God is the one who’s reall keeping you alive and there’s no need for that oxygen you’re breathing or water you’re drinking than you believe in matter holding some qualities – it would be a stretch to call this physicalism of any variety, but it is akin. If so, what do you pick out to believe about matter? Because if you believe even a quarter of the chemistry I do, you’d see that JC couldn’t have just waved his hand and created wine molecules from water, it just doesn’t happen that way
I believe that in God we live, move and have our being. In other words, all natural laws and all matter was created and is upheld by God. I believe we can logically, mathematically and empirically investigate some of these phenomena in action because God is a logical, consistent and intelligent being who made the universe to be uniform and our senses to be basically reliable. Being created in His image, we are also able to intelligently make sense of our universe. I believe I’m only able to breath oxygen and drink water because He created both my respitory system and digestive systems, but also the physical laws and matter that constitute and define oxygen and water.
In the general upholding of His universe, yes, wine doesn’t just change to water via a waving of the hand. However, we are not told of the mechanism Jesus used, whether He waved His hand or even if it was via some physical medium. Sometimes, Jesus did things simply through speaking. If it could be explained through normal natural laws operating, it would hardly be considered a miraculous event.
How would someone prove that we can explain everything in terms of physical matter when there are things in our universe that are not physical matter such as the aforementioned logic, laws of nature and mathematics? These are universal constants that do not arise from matter. Also, to prove that all things can be explained by the material, one would have to go beyond the material to make sure there’s nothing there, but that would refute the very notion that there is nothing beyond the material.
My beliefs in empirical science halt with it trying to explain things that cannot be empirically tested and assuming it can explain the “whys” when really it is meant to explain the “hows” and “whats” if you follow me. I’m not denying that it is an invaluable tool, I’m simply saying it has it’s limits and we should know them. Afterall, I believe that there would be no reason to assume science is even possible without God’s existence.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:02 am
@Stizzy (508):
“…See, you assumed God existed, but you also assumed that all things can be known empirically…”
Faulty syllogism. I never claimed that I assumed that all things could be known empirically. Sure, if there was enough evidence I would change my views – which there was – but if there wasn’t I would have reverted to my original, natural position.
“…How would someone prove that we can explain everything in terms of physical matter when there are things in our universe that are not physical matter such as the aforementioned logic, laws of nature and mathematics? These are universal constants that do not arise from matter. Also, to prove that all things can be explained by the material, one would have to go beyond the material to make sure there’s nothing there, but that would refute the very notion that there is nothing beyond the material…”
Interesting, that’s philisophy for you. There is enough evidence of numbers and logic in the way things – the natural universe – work that it could be argued that within what we can see, touch, feel and examine, we can find out everything there is to know. The beauty of that is that it is the opposite of your viewpoint, in the end, one of them is going to be right – generally speaking of course because I find it insane that given an almighty being (which I’m more than happy accepting) that it is your strictly defined, narrow-minded being.
Meaning is what we give to things, one is one because that’s what it is – although if you get into more complicated mathematics you do see that there is evidence that one would be one without us here. Logic is logical because it is, it’s the most efficient way to get to the answer the majority would find correct.
Sure it’s circular logic on both counts above – if circular logic exists without logic – but so is your explanation.
That God gave us logic? He gave us numbers? That sounds insane to me.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Faulty syllogism. I never claimed that I assumed that all things could be known empirically. Sure, if there was enough evidence I would change my views – which there was – but if there wasn’t I would have reverted to my original, natural position.
You based your analysis on whether God exists on empirical evidence. This would seem to imply that you assume all things can be known empirically, or at least that which is beyond the physical universe (which doesn’t seem logical). That said, what empirical evidence do you believe shows God doesn’t exist?
There is enough evidence of numbers and logic in the way things – the natural universe – work that it could be argued that within what we can see, touch, feel and examine, we can find out everything there is to know.
Perhaps about the “natural universe” in terms of what can be observed and how it works, but there is more to our universe and our reality than this.
generally speaking of course because I find it insane that given an almighty being (which I’m more than happy accepting) that it is your strictly defined, narrow-minded being.
Isn’t this really just a subjective opinion and not really logically or rationally justified? It sounds to me like your rejection of one idea of God is down to you just not liking the idea, despite whether it’s true or not.
Meaning is what we give to things, one is one because that’s what it is – although if you get into more complicated mathematics you do see that there is evidence that one would be one without us here.
That’s my point, are all things what they are because we give meaning to them, or are there things that would still be were we not here? I believe so. I believe there are some things that are universal constants, and because of this we can express them in various ways, such as communicating through languages.
Yes, logic is logic because it is. And God is God because He is. He said as such Himself. Yes it is circular, but not fallaciously so because it can be justified. He is the most consistent, non-arbitrary and logical way to explain our reality.
I say that God gave us the minds to be able to use logic and numbers because logic and numbers are descriptions of the way His mind works, and we are created in His likeness. If you think that’s insane, again it just sounds like an arbitrary opinion.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:14 am
4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
what i’m interested in is that where are all the atheists in this site?
why so silent?
July 20th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
i meant the resident atheists of this site.
Stizzy: been following your posts. thank you for answering the questions the other posters threw your way. i have the same questions in my head for a long time now and it’s really nice to have them explained.
which reminds me, i think one fault of the Catholic church is failing to truly explain its dogmas and traditions. i mean, unless you go to a Sunday church or study theology, there’s no way you’ll be able to understand what Catholicism is all about.
i was born and raised a traditional Catholic, but not once did my parents, our grade school catechist and clergymen and nuns shed light why Catholics do what they do.
i mean, there wouldn’t be any misconception against the church if only people understand it.
so yeah, thanks for this list. and thanks to commenters like Stizzy.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@moi (513): The Catholic Church does not hide its teachings. All teachings and traditions are explained very clearly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (ccc) and in tons of other media. There are so many books, websites, blogs, videos out there to explore. We explain what we can when we have an opportunity, but are we going around all the time to answer every question- not really. Sure, many children do not understand their own beliefs, which can be attributed to unsatisfactory catechesis, but faith also needs to be taught at home. (Most catechists are just your classmates moms who care enough to try to teach you something about your own faith, not exactly any Masters of Theology there.) So instead of pointing fingers to blame others for our own lack of knowledge, perhaps we should look at ourselves, and take our education into our own hands.
I know for a while after Vatican II the Catholic Church did have trouble giving young Catholics a clear understanding of their beliefs, but it has come a long way since that point. In my parish, my diocese, we have tons of programs for kids, teens, young adults, and adults to learn more about their own faith and better understand our “dogmas and traditions”.
Catholicism can be very confusing, especially from the outside, but it’s really cool nonetheless. Go check it out!
PS-Part of being Catholic is attending Mass every Sunday. So anyone who considers themselves as Catholic should already be doing that.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Responding to moi: make no mistake we(non-theists) are out here. Most of my fellow comrades probably gave up on this conversation long ago(back say, around 100), we’ve essentially heard it all before and it becomes excessively redundant. It’s enough to make anyone who is following this post a little stizzy! So I will just toss out a few bon mots for you to chew on. Pleez! No rejoinder is necessary.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into. Jonathon Swift
faith, n.
Belief w/o evidence in what is told by one speaks w/o knowledge, of things w/o parallel. Ambrose Bierce
The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-soaked history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. Mark Twain(what a heretic)
When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Stephen H Roberts
You may reject other gods because you believe(faith) in YOUR one TRUE God, I reject yours and others because of a critical absense of convincing evidence. The concept of gods has been handed down from before recorded history(oral tradition) and continually modified o’er the ages.
See Jos.Campbell(JS), “The Power of Myth”
“Life is without meaning,
You bring the meaning to it.
The meaning of life is
whatever you ascribe it to be.
Being alive is the meaning.” JS
From whence we arrive at the current state of gods in the mind of humans. Paleo/Meso/Neo-lithic humans developed stories, fables, lessons in an attempt to understand nature as well as their dreams and visions. The development of a God concept became necessary for them to make somekind of sense out of their perplexing world as well as an important element in the social bonding(unit cohesion) of the family/clan/tribe(FCT). Out of this also developed a ‘Creation Myth’(origins of the FCT), ancestor worship(the founders of the FCT as well as the newly departed), and a ‘Final Destination’(heaven, happy hunting ground, Elysian Fields etc.). A place where they would be united with their esteemed forefathers, provided they were members in good-standing during their life(incentive to be a faithful FCT member). Again necessary elements for the smooth continuity of the FCT through the mysteries of their arduous world as they confronted them set down in rules established through the years taught and reinforced by the elders and interpreted by the ‘visionaries’(priests, shamans, oracles, etc).
Hence, the origin of gods.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
In regards to # 3 Priestly Celibacy
I believe the Philippine Independent Catholic Church or Aglipayan Church (I’m not sure if it’s recognized by the Pope of Rome) allows priest to marry.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
maharla: the Aglipayan Church is in union with the Anglican churches. It is not recognized by the Catholic Church and, therefore, is not relevant with regards to this list.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
The one thing I will never get about people who claim mankind created God as a comfort blanket………why? Why on earth would that develop? And why don’t we cling so tightly to other fables such as santa claus? Most children get over that by age 10, but for some reason people hang onto God until the day they die.
More over, why would we invent the God of the Bible?
Many don’t actually like the idea of a final destination or a creation and so either would be of no comfort to them. Really, such theories are based on the assumption that mankind has evolved over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor, and so God is critiqued from this stand point. Yet if the biblical God exists, mankind certainly didn’t evolve from an ape-like creature and all theories surrounding the development of God from the mind of man would be redundant.
I find it interesting that it’s said non-theists have essentially heard it all before and it’s become redundant, because Mayo you’ve essentially repeated the same thing someone else said further up, which was addressed. From my experience it seems that it’s not a case of that there is no good argument, but that the other side is often simply dismissive of it as if it doesn’t exist.
@Moi: Glad I could help clarify some things
I think part of this failure isn’t just with Catholics but with all branches of Christianity. There are pockets in every group who have strayed from the very thing they build their faith on and very few are able to clarify or justify their belief. That’s why I’m so concerned with clarifying misconceptions and trying to convey the true spirit of Jesus.
July 21st, 2009 at 3:50 am
i dont agree that catholicism are the true christians.
the orthodox church split off teh catholics becuyase they didnt accept a pope in rome.
and in roman times, tehre was a conflict between catholics and gnostics. rome burned down their librairy in alexandria, tried to destroy gnosticism.
archeology shows that gnosticism is much older then any other form of christianity, and rather diferent. the bible has been re-written many times, so its kinda logical that the bible you read suports the idea of catholics beeing the real christians. but not true.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:03 am
@Stizzy(518): I suggest watching Journey to the Edge of the Universe, also Japanese scientists recently simulated an asteroid collision and found that the pressures created by impact with sea water resulted in the creation of amino acids, a building block for life! You might also check Panspermia, multiple universes and quantum mechanics!
July 21st, 2009 at 6:12 am
@lostatsea:
If I get a chance I’ll check it out.
Synthesising amino acids really isn’t surprising so there isn’t really anything special about it. Our universe contains all the elements needed to physically construct life because it was created to contain such elements.
Essentially, creating an amino acid is like placing several magnetic plastic letters in a tank of water, dropping a rock in it and marvelling that a comprehensible word has been assembled. This is of course baring in mind that the information in DNA could be akin to something like 1000 volumes of 500 page books. This word would need to be in a sentence with grammer and syntax, as part of a larger paragraph, chapter and book.
There’s also the point that such a word only has meaning because it is a previously established, universal convention. Were there not an intelligence to establish this convention, this assemblage would be meaningless.
I’ve looked into panspermia, multiple universes and quantum mechanics
. Panspermia is essentially irrelevant because all it does is push the debate further back in time and further away, it’s not an answer.
Multiple universes is essentially appealing to an infinite, eternal unknown that cannot be observed or tested. As such I find it odd that anyone could acknowledge this as a more credible possibility than an infinite, eternal God.
Quantum mechanics blows my mind, although apparently if you think you get it, you don’t get it at all :p. Kinda reminds me of the one who claims to have completely “got” God…you’re not even close. I do wonder if some the intricacies of quantum mechanics are a reflection of the Holy Spirit though.
July 21st, 2009 at 7:01 am
quote Stizzy: “The one thing I will never get about people who claim mankind created God as a comfort blanket………why? Why on earth would that develop? And why don’t we cling so tightly to other fables such as santa claus? Most children get over that by age 10, but for some reason people hang onto God until the day they die.”
The world can be a dark and unfriendly place. You can ask yourself a lot of very important questions which don’t have a “right” answer. Why i am here, what happens when i die, am i doing the right thing?, Will the creators of Lost explain everythingin the final episode?
Wouldn’t it be more comforting if you knew that there was someone watching over you, protecting you from all bad things. Wouldn’t it be better if you knew that those who are evil will be punished and the good will be rewarded, that if you perform certain rituals (praying, fasting, following the 10 commandments, it will reward you)
And the most important thing about that comfort blanket is the concept of death. To all of humanity death is a scary thing. If you’re an atheist you knew that after death it’s over. But if you believe in an afterlife, you can think, hey i might live forever (in heaven or hell…) This can be comforting i guess.
i was raised a roman catholic, but i wasn’t indoctrinated, we had religion in school, in the boy scouts, but me (and my friends) felt zero connection with it. We would be sitting in church and wandering what the priest was talking about (a lamb, bread, wine, Hosanna, and then you get this tasty cookie) so once i was a little wiser i quit the whole thing.
I really typed this quite fast, and english isn’t my native language so don’t attack me on that, it’s about the arguments i use.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
@Stizzy(521): If there are multiple universes and black holes are gateways between them, then there would be infinite life in all of them, would they also have the same beliefs? To take this even further are we in our corporal bodies a universe to even smaller life forms who would consider us god? You see where it becomes absurd!
July 21st, 2009 at 11:41 am
@lostatsea: Isn’t the whole multiverse scenario making arbitrary assumptions based on other arbitrary assumptions? What reason do we have to think there is a multiverse or that it would contain life?
I highly doubt there are multiple universes in the sense that scientist think there are. Really, it’s wishful thinking to avoid a definite beginning to reality, a first cause and therefore a causing agent. Not to mention, it wouldn’t be possible for a black hole to be a gateway to another universe. Nothing would be able to cross over, let alone survive entering the black hole.
And I doubt it about the smaller life forms. Do we communicate with them? Are we aware of them? Do we care about them? Can we will them into existence and create universes for them with our minds? Can we do ANYTHING that the biblical God can? Doesn’t seem so.
Even if there were multiple universe, there would be no reason to assume there is infinite life in them, and even if there were, this would hardly rule God out of the equation.
We have to form our theories based on what we do know without appealing to the unknown. Based on what we do know, both of those scenarios are highly unlikely.
@WWDDD:
The thing is, whether we require those comforts or not doesn’t mean we invented a God to help deal with our issues. It would be consistent with mankind being estranged from the God we all know in our heart of hearts exists. Without Him, we are without purpose and meaning.
Furthermore, without Him there’s no reason to even think that there’s anything wrong or right, good or bad. Essentially, there would be no need for a comfort blanket because there would be no purpose or meaning to existence and therefore no fear of life or death. We would all be the product of chance chemical reactions, as would our senses and emotions. There would be no reason to even think that loneliness is loneliness and fear is fear.
Also, with the problem of “evil” there would be no reason to consider evil to actually be evil. Evil would have no meaning in such a universe as morality would be subjective. So there would be no need to punish anyone as they would simply be acting according to the chemical processes and physics of their bodies.
July 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
@Stizzy(524): Is it not by Your reasoning that God is also unreasonable? Our universe came out of a Black Hole and we are alive, so where did we originate? You can always say God did it..so what is God? We once worshipped the Sun and Stars, as well as the Earth and countless other deieties, so who is right? As to right and wrong, that is a peculiar human trait, brought about through our tribal past and the ability to live harmoniously within a closed society, ie. the tribe. Siddhartha Gautama was born in 586 B.C.E. he was a Prince who decided to search for enlightenment or the understanding of the elusive meaning of life and death. He was not God or even a disciple, however he did formulate a way of life that allowed humans to understand how to attain Nirvana or the ‘right path’ by ways that was similar to Jesus. We are born to die and how we live and interact with each other is our destiny. Smile and give solace to those in need gives us energy and enlightenment..happiness and contentment should be our goal. Peace to you and all humanity.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:22 pm
So If you don’t believe in God you can’t judge what is right or wrong? I’m an atheist and i can damn well decide when something is good or bad. There is reason in life even without God? We still value life and fear death.
Your reaction is ignorant: So you don’t believe in God, well then you don’t believe in anything! add some semi biological crap about chance, chemical processes and amino acids, voila your life is meaningless without god ….
Well, I can make my own decisions.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
As a lifelong Catholic, one who attended 12 years of Catholic school and has been teaching at a Catholic school for the past 15 years, I had no idea that these misconceptions even existed (except for #3), or that this many idiots actually believe them. And, for the record, after 42 years of Catholicism, I have never personally met anyone who claims to have been abused by a priest or any religious. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen; I watch the news, too. But, once again, people take a few instances and turn it into a stereotype. Germans are all bloodthirsty, Jews are all skinflints, blacks are all athletes, and Islam is a breeding ground for terrorists, right? Please!
July 21st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
@WWDDD:
You misunderstand me WWDDD
and really your reaction is an expected one. I didn’t say you can’t judge right and wrong because you don’t believe in God, I said that according to your world view, if you are consistent with it, there is no justifiable reason for you to judge right and wrong. What is your ultimate standard of morality? The fact that you do judge shows that there must be a flaw to your world-view.
What do you believe the reason for life is without God? We can determine a belief in right and wrong without believing in Him however, we are only able to do so because He exists and created us to be able to decide.
My reaction isn’t ignorant in this respect, but I fear yours may be as you haven’t understood my point and have reacted to it in your ignorance.
No one is arguing that you cannot make your own decisions. This is part of free will which God created you to have, regardless of whether you believe He gave you the ability. However, in an evolutionary world-view, it could be said that you’re not actually making your own decisions and that your decisions are the end product of chemical processes in your body, pre-determined by your genes. “I can make my own decisions” in thise sense would be an illusion. Not consistent with reality though is it?
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding and animosity
@lostatsea:
Is it not by Your reasoning that God is also unreasonable?
In what sense?
Our universe came out of a Black Hole and we are alive, so where did we originate?
Why do you believe we came out of a Black Hole? This isn’t even the standard accepted, scientific thery of the origin of the universe. That said, you know where I believe we originated from so the question is redundant.
can always say God did it..so what is God?
Why is it a problem that God is the explanation for the universe? The other alternative seems to be “the universe did it!” but how? This position cannot be justified. Also, as I’ve repeatedly stated, God is an all powerful, all knowing Spirit.
We once worshipped the Sun and Stars, as well as the Earth and countless other deieties, so who is right?
According to the bible, we are all created with an innate knowledge of God and through our own choices, suppress and distort this knowledge, turning instead to worshop creation instead of the creator and gods fashioned by our hands. Dismissing God, people will turn to other things in which to worship. The first people, however, worshipped God.
As to right and wrong, that is a peculiar human trait, brought about through our tribal past and the ability to live harmoniously within a closed society, ie. the tribe.
How was it brought about through our tribal past? Why do we have the ability to live harmoniously? Your answer doesn’t actually explain anything.
He was not God or even a disciple, however he did formulate a way of life that allowed humans to understand how to attain Nirvana or the ‘right path’ by ways that was similar to Jesus.
All people are born with an innate knowledge of God , yet when they estrange themselves and deny Him, they will search for other means to explain the universe and attain “enlightenment”, yet these efforts will always lead to futility because the reverance for God is the beginning of all knowledge. Jesus said He was God. He said He is the way, the truth and the life. He made an incredible claim far beyond any who came before Him or after Him.
Buddha’s teaching leads towards seeking the anihilation of the self to escape suffering. Jesus provides the way to escape eternal suffering through His own suffering, maintaining our identity, being the reason for our existence and the one who can tell us how suffering arose.
We are born to die and how we live and interact with each other is our destiny. Smile and give solace to those in need gives us energy and enlightenment..happiness and contentment should be our goal.
I would be interested in hearing how you come to this conclusion. Otherwise, peace be with you.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 am
A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 am
Point 8 states that “Catholics are the first Christians.”
“Early Christian writings” are not necessarily synonymous with Scripture [also known to Christians as God's inspired word (2 Timothy 3:16)]. Acts 11:26 states that “…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Christians are mentioned again in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16. The term “Catholic” is noticeably absent from the Scriptures. The assumption that the terms “Catholic” and “Christian” are interchangable is external to Scriptural teachings.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:12 am
@Stizzy (528): You were doing so well up to this point. Now it seems you are not only preaching but trying to convert. This last post shows just that. I thought you said it was ok for those to believe what they want. But yet here in this post, you are saying that WWDDD’s beliefs are because god came first. WRONG!
Sorry if we don’t work on the same time frame as you. You see, I believe the world is older than 6000 years, while you believe it is only 6000 years old. Because of this, I don’t believe in him at all. I wasn’t born with knowledge of him….you got to be kidding me with that. That is your universe, not mine. Please do not force our views on us. You are no longer explaining but now telling. Re-read your post. It comes off as condecending and preachy. One of my pet peeves.
I was following these conversations and yours is starting to deteriorate rapidly. It has holes and you are becoming more rude by the day. With each post it’s becoming clearer. Which is why I took the time to post today. You are losing what audience you were setting out to reach and instead drawing the ones you don’t want.
You did so much better on the other list. Even in the face of those calling you names you did better than now.
@WWDDD (526): I agree with your post. We all have the ability to judge right or wrong. Some get this ability from what we learned from our parents or in school or even from friends. I didn’t get mine from a book or a church. I learned from seeing that bad deeds hurt others. Nothing instilled that in me, but me.
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:15 am
indeed oouchan,
Christians, and other religious people often claim they have the monopoly on certain values and that all non-believers are amoral, evil doing heathens. Something like: you can only do good, know what is good if your believe in God, Allah, Sjivva Don Draper, etc.
Non believers can have morals too. The golden rule is shared by a lot of different cultures. You don’t need a supreme being to see how it works
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
@Stizzy(528)The Doomsday Code
http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
There are some 40 apocalyptic books from this era but this was the only one that made it into the Bible. If the author was writing about the hated Roman Empire, it could be that the seven heads of the beast meant the seven emperors.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 am
@Stizzy (528): “All people are born with an innate knowledge of God , yet when they estrange themselves and deny Him, they will search for other means to explain the universe and attain “enlightenment”, yet these efforts will always lead to futility because the reverance for God is the beginning of all knowledge. ”
Are you f*cking kidding me? Thank you for showing me the truth David Koresh!!
July 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
MJ was a catholic wasn’t he?
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Irony; Of all the lists it’s these ones that bring out all of the wierdos. “Do what thou whilt shall be the whole of the law” ie. to each his own. If people want to believe in bogeymen & super-aliens thats entirely up to them as long as they don’t try and convince me of it as fact. At the end of the day all of these organized religions percieve themselves to be the ‘truth’ and all of the others the work of some demonic entity. These kinds of lists are just never-ending fuel for mindless and desperate bickering. By the time this comment section is full, Id say that nearly every possible religious text known to man is going to be copied and pasted within these pages.
Oh and don’t forget that satan loves you
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Sex Crimes and the Vatican http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
Created in 1962, a now infamous document was issued in secret to bishops. Called Crimen Sollicitationis, it outlined procedures to be followed by bishops when dealing with allegations of child abuse, homosexuality and bestiality by members of the clergy. It swore all parties involved to secrecy on pain of excommunication from the Catholic Church.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
For all the ignorant folks on this thread, pleas be aware that no more than 4% of Catholic priests were guilty of child abuse.
Child abuse is much more prevailent in PUBLIC SCHOOLS than within the Catholic Church, and secular sources acknowledge this.
Also, the abuse which occured in the Catholic Church was NOT on of paedophilia- but HOMOSEXUAL priests raping POST pubescent teenage boys.
According to the NON religously affiliated John Jay Criminal College- 80% of the abuse in the Church involved homosexuals priests molesting boys between the ages of 10-17.
It is for this reason that homosexuals entering seminaries is forbidden.
Try arguing with FACTS and not rhetoric which you’ve learnt from anti Catholics.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 am
@Sarah (538): Just to let you know that pedophiles prey on children. Those sick individuals are mostly straight men. Make sure to get your facts straight, too.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
@Sarah (538): So we had it all wrong. There was no pedaphilia going on in the churches but homosexuality priests raping “POST pubescent teenage boys”. Thanks for clearing that up.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 am
@Oochan,
Why don’t YOU deal with facts. A intensive study was carried out on the abuse in the Catholic Church, and it was discovered that PAEDOPHILIA was practically NON existent- but PEDASTRY was.
Paedophilia is the name given to attraction and abuse of PRE pubescent children. 80% o the victims were POST pubescent boys- predominantly between the ages of 10-17.
Homosexual pederasts were molesting teenage males- not heterosexual priests molesting undeveloped boys.
Whenever anti Catholic pro homosexuals deal with this PROVEN FACT- they try to digress as the facts go against their pro homosexual propaganda.
As homosexuals make up no more than 4% of the worlds populations, it is of no surprise that there are more heterosexual paedophiles. When we look at the percentage of paedophilia in the homosexual community vs the heterosexual community, your findings will of course be different.
PS- Most honest people are aware that youth is highly favoured in the homosexual male community, and there is a weird preoccupation with barely legal adolescent males with older homosexual men.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Enigma, you’re welcome for enabling me to educate you. But you have the non religously affiliated John Jay Criminal College to thank for this information.
Raping teenage boys is child abuse- but NOT paedophilia, per se.
Paedophilia covers EXCLUSIVELY the sexual abuse of children who are YET to reach the point of puberty.
Studies are even now showing that as much as up to 40% of clergy are thought to have same sex attraction, so it is no surprise that the abuse in the Church occured.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
@Sarah (542): It’s all the same to me. Abuse on children is sick and disturbing and I can care less what its classified under. You are comparing apples to oranges.
The fact that an intensive study was done and all they found out was that the priests prefer older kids to younger kids is ridiculous.
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
@Sarah (541): Wrong. Pedophiles prey on children. That is all children. I don’t CARE that it might be defined in YOUR world as pre-puberty. It’s sick and wrong ANY age before the age of consent. That is 18 where I am from and they will be labeled as a pedophile and suffer for it.
I know that it’s more prelivant at schools than anywhere else. I don’t dispute your example of that over the church. I will dispute the claim about defining pedophiles however.
A study done showed that of the 175 males convicted of child molestation and abuse in Massachusetts …none were homosexual. To just judge them as a whole is wrong. Pedophiles like children and teens. MOST homosexuals like ADULTS…there is a difference. I admit there are a few that like them young but not all and not most.
PS- Most honest people are aware that youth is highly favoured in the homosexual male community, and there is a weird preoccupation with barely legal adolescent males with older homosexual men.
Same goes with older men looking for 20 something girlfriends. Still sick and wrong for that too.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Enigma, child abuse is horrific- quite frankly I’d like to see capital punishment used on all child abusers- INCLUDING Catholic priests.
That being said, I disagree. Do you honestly believe the molestation of a 15 year old boy is equal to that of a 5 year old boy?
The younger it happens- the WORSE, in my opinion.
And no, the study found that the majority of the perpetrators were priests with same sex attraction- as we Catholics call it.
The nature of the abuses were one of homosexual rape of developed children, which defers greatly from heterosexual paedophilia.
Once the Church discovered the true nature of the abuse, they could implement measures in preventing it happening again- and the most significant way in achieving this was banning all men with same sex attraction from entering seminaries to begin formation as priests.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@Oouchan 531:
I didn’t say he was wrong, I said her misunderstood me. In what way was I trying to convert? I simply said, way I see it, that if you’re consistent with an atheistic / evolutionary worldview, there are things you can’t justify.
I gave my reasons for why I believe that is so, I did not force WWDDD, you or anyone else to believe it and I did not expect my words to persuade you. I simply gave and defended my position, yet no where did I say you had to accept it. So you’ll have to show me at which point I was attempting to convert anyone because honestly I don’t see it, and that wasn’t my intention
I also don’t see in what way I was being rude. You say I am being preachy, no longer explaining but telling. What would you say it is that you are doing in your post? Are you not telling also? Are you not preaching to me now? From my point of view, it seems there is a double standard here.
I accept that not everyone views the world the way I do, however, I have explained my points from within this view as I cannot obviously explain them according to yours as they are not consistent.
So either you take it or you leave it.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Also, to further clarify, I didn’t say that WWDDD has his beliefs because God was first, what I was actually saying was that we all have the inherent ability to distinguish between right and wrong (to an extent) or at least be aware of it because God has placed this ability within us.
Does this clear up the misunderstanding?
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
[i]@Sarah (541): Wrong. Pedophiles prey on children. That is all children. I don’t CARE that it might be defined in YOUR world as pre-puberty. It’s sick and wrong ANY age before the age of consent. That is 18 where I am from and they will be labeled as a pedophile and suffer for it.[/i]
Nonsense.
Paedophilia is SCIENTIFICALLY defined as an attraction to children who have not reached puberty. This is how EDUCATED people define paedophilia, and not simply me.
You have no authority to redefine a word as it convicts homosexual predators who like young adolescent males.
The age of consent varies from country to country- so it is entirely subjective- which is why the SCIENTIFIC label for pre pubescent child abuse must be used, and not the age of consent laws in your country. The whole world does not revolve around how people from your country of origin define things, sorry.
Here in the UK, the age of consent is 16 (although I wish it was 18, as it is where you’re from). However, it is as low as 12 in Italy, and I think around 12 in Japan. Personally, I think this is disgusting.
[i]A study done showed that of the 175 males convicted of child molestation and abuse in Massachusetts …none were homosexual. To just judge them as a whole is wrong. [/i]
This is an example in ONE STATE- but care to cite a peer reviewed source? If you look at ALL states together, the pattern the John Jay study showed was that the pattern of abuse revolved around:
1. Homosexual priests
2. Sexual abuse of boys who were still children, but were past the age of puberty- predominantly in their teen years
[i]Pedophiles like children and teens. [/i]
Again, paedophilia is not SCIENTIFICALLY labelled as an attraction to teenagers- but children BEFORE the point of puberty. Again- you have no right to redefine a word.
[i]Same goes with older men looking for 20 something girlfriends. Still sick and wrong for that too.[/i]
Hardly the same thing, considering there is BIOLOGICAL/ FERTILITY aspect to men favouring young women.
Clearly, younger women are more fertile than older women, so it is simple biology that any heterosexual mammal will favour women who are of the age of child bearing.
Now, can you explain to me why so many 50 year old+ gay men have an obsession with men who have just left their teenage years, when we all know that two men can never naturally procreate, so there is no biological component to homosexual mens attraction to young males??
PS- Amongst homosexual men in the gay scene, I hear that the age of 30 is considered “old” by their standards. No wonder there is this preoccupation with males barely 20 years old.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
There was no misunderstanding, we just have different beliefs. It just sometimes it frustrating when in a discussion you know you are probably right, but the oponent comes up with all this bogus arguments, and sometimes even refuses to listen to reason, or attacks you on things that have nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. Everybody feels this way sometimes probably.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
@Sarah (545): “The nature of the abuses were one of homosexual rape of developed children, which defers greatly from heterosexual paedophilia.”
All I said is that those 2 things you mentioned above are the same to me. You rape a kid then there is something wrong with regardless of age. The act itself, whether the sicko was interested in young kids (paedophilia) or gay and liked young men who rape them (also called statutory rape), is immaterial. They are both SICK.
Like I said comparing apples to oranges.
So you are basically saying that it’s okay, that there is no paedophilia going on in the church. It is actually homosexual rape of developed children. It could be worst. But the church has discovered the problem and now are not allowing gays to become clergymen (which I thought the church didn’t accept in the first place). Problem solved everyone!
That’s dumb.
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
what are you implying, Sarah, that all gay men are paed
ophiles? Most cases of paedophilia i’ve heard is adult male, female child. I’ve anybody has some numbers from a serious source (wich no one probably has) post them here
July 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Thing is that in such a discussion as this, everyone will think they know they are right, so the only way forward in a debate is to debate which argument is more sound rather than going on how much we feel we are right. I do agree that reason is important and attacking the other person never helps. That’s why I think it’s important for everyone to have a reasonable argument, whether the other person listens or not.
I do understand your frustrations and do wish people would actually stick to arguments, because these things can often descend into mud slinging.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
agreed stizzy if someone gives a me a good, rational, convincing argument i will change my mind about that subject. This has probably been said 1000 time before, but you can debate science and faith, but when they get mixed up things can get messy
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
WDD, clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point.
I am NOT talking about paedohilia- which is the molestation of children who are YET to reach puberty.
I am talking about the molestation of children PAST the age of puberty, within the Catholic Church and the role homosexual priests played in this.
PS- Go read the conclusions of the John Jay Criminal College’s study which is published on the internet for ALL to see- including homosexual aplologists.
The issue has been settled in the Catholic Church, although homosexual activists continue to whitewash the truth of the abuse. It just goes to show how many of them truly care about the welfare of children, over protecting their image.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Only thing bout that is people say “science and faith” as if they’re mutually exclusive when really I don’t think they are.
For example, if we define faith as a hopeful, confident expectation for what we cannot see, we find that there is faith involved in all our lives and even in science as well. However, I also believe that faith should be justified and rational (although some people may think faith and rationality are mutually exclusive too), otherwise what reason does someone have for having faith at all? It becomes irrational. I think many religious people fall into this category to be honest.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Enigma, to say there were no cases of paeodophilia in the Catholic Church would be false.
Such instances, however, comprised a miniscule percentage of the overall abuse.
Trying to tackle paeodhilia in the Church is rather redundant, when the overwhelming majority of abuse did not even involve paedohilia.
And yes, removing the PRIME abusers- homosexuals- from the priesthood is the initial and most effective way to combat child abuse in the Catholic Church.
Think about it: Had there been NO homosexual priests to begin with, there would have been 80% less child abuse cases in the Catholic Church. That is a dramatic decrease in victimised young males, don’t you think?
Can you also answer the unanswered question below:
Clearly, younger women are more fertile than older women, so it is simple biology that any heterosexual mammal will favour women who are of the age of child bearing.
Now, can you explain to me why so many 50 year old+ gay men have an obsession with men who have just left their teenage years, when we all know that two men can never naturally procreate, so there is no biological component to homosexual mens attraction to young males??
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Stizzy (546): With you post, you told WWDDD that even though he believed one way it was because of god being behind it. Tell me that isn’t telling him he is wrong. If I don’t believe in god how can he be behind what I do or say. Its just that you and I are talking about apples and oranges here. We are not going to match up because there is (to me) no driving force behind what I do. For you to say otherwise…
@Sarah (548): It’s the same. A child is a child. (Japan is 20 by the way).
Paedophilia is SCIENTIFICALLY defined as an attraction to children who have not reached puberty. This is how EDUCATED people define paedophilia, and not simply me.
No…that’s how those who don’t care about children define it. ANYONE that has sexual relations with one below the age of concent is labled as a pedophile where I live. I am very happy for that law.
I am also a mother. I also can’t believe we are having a discussion about this. It’s SICK and WRONG…PERIOD! Anyone who looks at it differently doesn’t seem to care about children. If that is how it is defined where you are…get it changed!
As for studies…I can’t post them all here. That would take all day. Yes. it was one state…but all 50 have done the same thing and come up with very similar results. The average is less than 14% of pedophiles are homesexual. To label all or most pedophiles as being gay is not true.
Now, can you explain to me why so many 50 year old+ gay men have an obsession with men who have just left their teenage years, when we all know that two men can never naturally procreate, so there is no biological component to homosexual mens attraction to young males??
This is what I posted earlier. It’s the same for old men going after young women. Do you really think they do it for making children? Hell no! They do it for sex. Same here. Both wrong and kind of disgusting.
PS- Amongst homosexual men in the gay scene, I hear that the age of 30 is considered “old” by their standards. No wonder there is this preoccupation with males barely 20 years old.
Same as above. When a woman hits 30…she gets the same reaction. It’s no different.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
@Sarah (556): “Now, can you explain to me why so many 50 year old+ gay men have an obsession with men who have just left their teenage years”
Hmm.. Let me just take a stab at this very interesting and complex question……..
Because they are YOUNG!! Duh
“Clearly, younger women are more fertile than older women, so it is simple biology that any heterosexual mammal will favour women who are of the age of child bearing.”
Yes, old men prefer young women solely on the fact that they can have babies. Give me a break.
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
@ oouchan:
You seem to think that belief in God somehow determines whether He exists or not. He can exist whether people believe He’s there or not.
One can not believe in laws of logic, yet this doesn’t change the fact that there are laws of logic. And indeed, to even mount an argument for or against logic, you must first assume it. The same is true with God.
I told WWDDD that despite believing in God or not, God is the reason for the preconditions of intelligibility and morality. So far, a counter-argument for this hasn’t been offered because people seem to be interpreting this as meaning they can’t have any morality or use reason, logic and rationality. This isn’t true.
Even if I had flat out said I thought he was wrong, I gave reasons for why I would assert such a thing.
The point is not that God is behind what you say, the point is that if God didn’t exist to create mankind, laws of logic, laws of nature and the universe, we wouldn’t be able to think and say anything at all. He has provided the preconditions that allow us to do so and has given us the free will to choose how we use these abilities. That is my world view.
Of course, we shouldn’t expect to match up, so therefore the debate turns to ones world-views I believe.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Enigma- please try and be intelligent.
The point I’m making is that the TRADITIONAL connection with female youth and attractivness EMANATES from the biological tradition of heterosexual men choosing younger wives due to their fertility.
And we all know that young women in their 20’s = fertile. The same cannot be said about women in their 40’s…
Homosexual men, however, have no biological tradition explaining their obsession with young males barely out
of their teenage years, as they can never conceive naturally.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@Stizzy (559): True. He can exist in spite of what we believe and the opposite is true. He could NOT exist for those who do believe. Both work.
I told WWDDD that despite believing in God or not, God is the reason for the preconditions of intelligibility and morality.
So you say. That is not true for me. See the difference? To me, that came from what I learned and taught myself. It wasn’t there before because god made it so. It was there because we woke up from being mindless apes and realized behavior like that isn’t good.
So to you god intstilled it in humans and to me we taught ourselves. Apples and oranges. That is my world view.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
@Sarah (560): The older people who are attracted to younger people are not just attracted because they can bore their children. They just want to have sex with them. They young, good looking, probably in good shape. Why do you think most models are young. That is what people want to see.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Well my question at this juncture would be how do you define what is good and what isn’t? By what standard do you measure it? Because, especially in todays society, morality can become relative otherwise. One mans evil is another mans good and really in such a world-view there’s no reason to believe any one morality is better than another.
And if it comes down to a matter of survival, well, why is it important to survive? We’re just a blip in an insignificant part of a homogenous universe, so whether we survive or not (in such a view) is irrelevant.
To me, being creations who are dearly treasured and of high worth living in a world that is decaying (due to our own fault), our survival and the survival of other creatures becomes important and has purpose.
To your point about what you learned, did you learn the ability to learn? When did you become intelligent enough to be intelligent? Were you taught to be able to be taught? I don’t think so, all of these abilities were inherent preconditions and I believe their existence points to the Creator who is logical, rational and highly intelligent. He created us to also be intelligent, to be logical, to be rational and to be curious about our existence and our universe. He also gave us the tools and designed the universe in such a way that we would be able to investigate it.
How does a “mindless” ape suddenly wake up and realise anything?
I understand that this is your world view, but it seems to me to be inconsistent in that you haven’t justified why these things are there in the first place.
God could not exist for those who do believe, but I don’t believe this is so because too many things cannot be accounted for if He doesn’t. There would simply be no logical reason for them to exist. A uniform universe with laws of nature is one. Laws of logic is another. Mathematics is yet another. And then we have preconditions of intelligibility and a sense of morality.
I don’t belive these can be rationally justified without the existence of God. That is my world view.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
@Stizzy (563):
Well my question at this juncture would be how do you define what is good and what isn’t? By what standard do you measure it? Because, especially in todays society, morality can become relative otherwise. One mans evil is another mans good and really in such a world-view there’s no reason to believe any one morality is better than another.
That works for anyone. What you think is good for your could be bad for me. Like this belief or non belief in god. You think it’s a good thing and that others should believe as well and spreading his word is good. I think it’s evil. It’s called an opinion. Same as yours.
It works the same for me too. Don’t think I don’t know that.
As for how do I know? If something I do as deliberate, hurts another person…I find that bad. I don’t want to hurt someone deliberately.
And if it comes down to a matter of survival, well, why is it important to survive? We’re just a blip in an insignificant part of a homogenous universe, so whether we survive or not (in such a view) is irrelevant.
To learn, to know, to grow, to love, to do and to be. Whatever you take from it. Does there have to be a reason? Or a higher purpose. I am here for the fun of it. That is my reason to survive.
I did provide reasons above and I wasn’t inconsistent. To you who believes in god and that he set all this in motion, it is an alien view for you to understand. I get it perfectly because I don’t have that “belief” in god. So to me…instead of saying “god did it”…I say “the big bang did it”.
I can see your point of view…it’s just different beginings for us. Yours starts with a god and mine started with a bang.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
@enigma (562):
OK, I was going to sit this one out but I think I need to jump in here and try to explain what I think Sarah is trying to say.
Yes, it is true that in their concious, rational minds these men are not attracted to young 20-year-olds thinking “Hum, this woman is hot because she can have lots of my babies!” HOWEVER, biological tradition (including evolution, etc) have hardwired our brains in a certain way. Over many, many years, men who were attracted to, had sex with and therefore had babies with were much more successful at passing on their genes than men who chose older women past their child-bearing prime. Evolution and natural selection being what they are, the genes that got passed down to us (and the conditioned behavior) was that men should be attracted to young, fertile females. That was the point of her argument.
Now, addressing the point about whether it was paedophilia… It´s purely semantics. Science defines paedophilia as abuse of a pre-pubescent child? Fine. It wasn´t paedophilia but it was still CHILD ABUSE and RAPE. There is no way to excuse this behavior.
That said, I agree that people should at least try to learn their facts before spouting hate. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Catholic church that makes men rape children. Compare % in the Church vs other activities where grown-ups interact with children (schools, etc). Pederasty and paedophilia are HUMAN (and very sick) inclinations. Priests do not lose their humanity when they are ordained. It´s not an excuse as these behaviors are always wrong but please dont make this a case against the Catholic Church.
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Oops… proof-reading too late but the line should say:
“Over many, many years, men who were attracted to, had sex with and therefore had babies with YOUNGER WOMEN were much more successful at passing on their genes than men who chose older women past their child-bearing prime.”
Sorry!
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
GTT, thank God for a rational thinking human being who understands where I’m coming from.
I know full well that most men who desire women in their 20’s aren’t thinking “I want them to have my babies”, but that there is a biological/ evolutionary component to men desiring fertile (young) women to mate with.
The same cannot be said about homosexual men, who have absolutely NO reason, rooted in biology or evolution, to be so obssessed with males who are barely adults, hence me believing their attraction to young males as perverse.
Again, this is what I’m highlighting.
Interestingly enough, I notice that when the true nature of abuse in the Church is revealed- homosexual rape of boys- most of the anti Catholics remain silent on condemming their Church…
Why am I yet to hear a single condemnation of the HOMOSEXUAL priests targeting young males to sexually exploit? Is child abuse only to be condemmed when the abuser is thought to be heterosexual?
Again, I strongly support capital punishment for all child abusers- regardless of whether they have been involved with paedophilia or not.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
@Stizzy(563) I think I had this argument with before, but here goes. God is not human, ergo an alien. UFOs have been seen and filmed also plotted on radar. Why would it not be possible that aliens have visited Earth in the past and were accorded godlike status, with advanced technology they would be able to accomplish many miracles, as told in Genesis. Ancient Aliens @ http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Oouchan,
As for studies…I can’t post them all here. That would take all day. Yes. it was one state…but all 50 have done the same thing and come up with very similar results. The average is less than 14% of pedophiles are homesexual. To label all or most pedophiles as being gay is not true.
Funny how I can cite the widely accepted John Jay Study which was conducted by a non religiously affiliated College to prove that 80% of the abuse within the Catholic Church involved homosexual priests raping boys, but you can’t cite a single study proving the numbers of homosexual paedophiles…
And no- you are LYING. No CREDIBLE study of 50 states have proven there were no or few homosexual priests involved with child abuse cases in the Catholic Church.
Massachutes (sp), in particular, is a very liberal state with ALOT of homosexual priests, so I very much doubt your claims that NONE of them were involved in molesting post pubescent boys, considering there are books written by Catholic theologians like Michael S Rose “Goodbye Good men” and Lawler’s “Faithful Departed” which shows the positive correlation between sexually liberal/ homosexual dominated states and the incidences of child abuse.
Boston and Mass are notoriously liberal- and shock horror- they are highest on the list of dioceses being bankrupted for having to pay out settlements for numerous child abuse cases.
PS- If your study is correct and the paedophile demographic is comprised of roughly 17% homosexuals, than that proves homosexuals are more prone to paedophilia.
Why might I come to this conclusion?
Because homosexuals realistically make up no more than 1-4% of the worlds population (the 10% myth was made up by Kinsey whose sample were comprised of impersonated men- and we all know that due to a lack of women in prisons, many men turn to homosexual behaviour), so 4% of the world’s population committing 17% of the world’s paedophilia shows a disproportional amount o abuse.
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point.
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
July 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 pm
@Oouchan:
That works for anyone. What you think is good for your could be bad for me. Like this belief or non belief in god. You think it’s a good thing and that others should believe as well and spreading his word is good. I think it’s evil. It’s called an opinion. Same as yours.
Indeed, but don’t you think you should also be able to rationally justify your opinion should anyone challenge it? If you cannot, there’s no reason for anyone to take what you say seriously, so on that basis, how is belief in God and telling people about Him “evil”?
As for how do I know? If something I do as deliberate, hurts another person…I find that bad. I don’t want to hurt someone deliberately.
So if you have a child and your child does something you know to be wrong, you discipline them and they are “hurt” emotionally or physically due to a smacking, that is bad? If one acts with the intent to hurt another, indeed I would call that bad. If it is not their intention to hurt but rather to guide, knowing in future something far worse can happen to them as a result, I call that tough love.
To learn, to know, to grow, to love, to do and to be. Whatever you take from it. Does there have to be a reason? Or a higher purpose. I am here for the fun of it. That is my reason to survive.
Well yes it does matter, because most arguments for morality for logic for intelligence etc all go back to this notion of “survival” yet if you can’t even justify the foundation of your thinking, the whole thing collapses. You’re here for the “fun” of it? Well what is the “fun of it”? Why is “fun” important?
I did provide reasons above and I wasn’t inconsistent.
But they weren’t really justifications for your point because they didn’t answer my question. You haven’t answered most of my questions which make your assertations seem arbitrary.
To you who believes in god and that he set all this in motion, it is an alien view for you to understand.
No it’s not alien because I once thought more in line with that frame of mind, therefore I understand it from experience. The difference is I no longer find it logical or satisfying. So you don’t have to have “non-belief” in God to get it.
I can see your point of view…it’s just different beginings for us. Yours starts with a god and mine started with a bang.
Undoubtedly, but the whole push of my argument has been our starting points. To me, the big bang and what follows from it just does not seem like a probable, logical, reasonable or rational starting point when you take into account the bigger picture. Not to say that it cannot explain or justify certain things, because if it couldn’t it wouldn’t be a tenable theory, but the principles it is based on and many of the things it seeks to explain, it cannot justify.
@lostatsea:
I think I had this argument with before, but here goes. God is not human, ergo an alien.
Alright first, lets define alien:
exotic | being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world
Now, if we go with this, anyone who is not from your country could be defined as an alien and yet they are human. Therefore one can be human and still be alien.
foreign | not contained in or deriving from the essential nature of something
Indeed God is not “contained” per se or derived from our nature, however this is because we contain and are derived from His essential nature. In human terms this could be applied to a human who is not from the same culture and language as another.
hypothetical creature | a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere
God is not so much a “form” of life in the same sense, but the very definition of life itself. God is indeed transcedent but He is also immanent and so such a rigid definition can’t be easily assigned to Him. I’m assuming this is the definition you are assigning to God as it is the one that generally wouldn’t be applied to humans.
intruder | anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found
Considering He is the Creator and owner of the universe and all things in it, He could hardly be considered an intruder. Yet a human can be considered an intruder if they are in another persons house.
traveler | a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country
The above similarly applies to this one. Although God is not “from” the universe, the universe is from Him. Again, however, this definition can be applied to a human.
There are many people who are not the same as another person and are therefore “aliens” yet there is something they share in common which is their nature as humans. Likewise a mother, in a sense, is “alien” to a child yet they share a nature and indeed the child came from the mother. They are derived from the same essential nature and are therefore not alien in this sense.
According to the Bible, God is spirit and humans have a spirit. It is not our physical nature we derive from God (although it is reflective of aspects of His nature), but it is our essential spirit nature that we share. In this sense, mankind and God are not alien to each other and although God is spirit, the physical also came from Him. And indeed, He removed all barriers between Himself and mankind by becoming a man Himself. Essentially, it would seem, God is not alien to us.
UFOs have been seen and filmed also plotted on radar.
A UFO, by definition, is an Unidentified Flying Object. As soon as you say it’s a space craft containing beings from another planet and part of the universe, it’s no longer “unidentified” UFO’s are simply what they’re name describes.
Why would it not be possible that aliens have visited Earth in the past and were accorded godlike status, with advanced technology they would be able to accomplish many miracles, as told in Genesis.
Again, depends what you mean by aliens. If you mean innovative, creative, civilized, intelligent creatures from another planet, it isn’t tenable in the biblical world-view because only humans were made in the image of God and if the whole of creation was subject to decay, Jesus essentially would have had to have died for every other being made in Gods image throughout the universe. Yet the Bible says He died once.
Now, on the other hand, if you mean angelic beings, the Bible indeed says this very thing. It says that angels did come down and people have worshipped angels throughout history yet this is forbidden. It’s also very clear on what these beings are, who made them and from whence they came.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 am
what a list, some are facts but mostly errors
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:13 am
Oh, and for Ouchan and Enigma:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/242004e.asp
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently released the results of a two-year investigation into the allegations that a significant number of priests had sexually abused children and teens over a period of more than 50 years.
The report also found that most of the perpetrators were homosexual priests, a revelation that angered homosexual-rights groups. However, openly homosexual author David France admits in his new book, Our Fathers: The Secret Life of the Catholic Church in an Age of Scandal, that the offenders were, in fact, homosexual.
“[W]e now know from talking to these priests [who molested teenagers]: they’re gay,” France told The Advocate, a magazine targeted to the homosexual community, adding, “And if they were gay men, we should ask ourselves why that was happening. What caused it?”
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_journalists.html
Most journalists purposely mislabel the abusive priests as pedophiles in order to create a smokescreen; their aim is to obscure the fact that most of these men are actually predatory homosexuals. Other journalists—a smaller subset—merely parrot the oft repeated phrase “pedophile priest”—without definitional consideration—and therefore participate only inadvertently in this obfuscation.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Perhaps we should start with a basic definition of pedophile. A pedophile is any adult who has a sexual desire for prepubescent children. Since most of the offending priests preyed sexually on teenage boys, they are not, by definition, pedophiles.
A significant majority of the sexually abusing priests are actually pederasts. Pederasts are adult male homosexuals who seek post-pubescent male minors with whom to act out their sexual inclinations. In my business of psychology they’re called sexual predators; in the business of law enforcement they’re called statutory rapists, or more simply, criminals. But no matter what, they’re not pedophiles.
Here are some additional facts that bear on the subject: First, according to most published estimates, between 25% and 50% of priests are homosexual.
This figure stands in stark, statistical contrast to the fact that only about 3% to 5% of the general population is homosexual. Homosexuals, therefore, disproportionately fill the ranks of the priesthood. Second, approximately 85% to 95% of the known sexual abuse perpetrated by priests was against teenage boys. Since one would statistically predict only 25% to 50% of the priest molestation cases to be homosexual—based on their percentages in the total priest population—one is struck by the fact that these homosexual priests are molesting in much higher percentages than one would expect, and thus in much higher percentages than their heterosexual priest counterparts.
Male homosexuals with whom I’ve spoken are not surprised by these percentages and have frankly acknowledged that a significant number of gay men, priests or not, do seek out teenage boys as “sex partners”—these men are known in the homosexual community by various monikers such as “chicken-hawks.”
As an aside, it is interesting to note that those who lambasted the Boy Scouts for barring openly gay scoutmasters have turned deafeningly silent since the priest scandal broke. I wonder if that’s because the fears implicit in the Boy Scout regulations now seem thoroughly reasonable in light of the predatory behavior of far too many homosexual priests?
But let me get back to the issue at hand—journalistic truth telling. Though as many as 95% of the priest molestation cases reported so far involve homosexuals molesting teenage boys, most journalists ignore the sexual orientation angle and inaccurately label the abusive priests as pedophiles. For most, this is not a mistake.
It appears that many journalists intentionally use the word pedophile because it is nonspecific as to sexual preference and thus conceals the fact that a disproportionately high number of the predatory priests are homosexual.
These journalists—who tend to lean socially and politically leftward—want to obscure this fact because it would be detrimental to the homosexual agenda which has long contended that homosexuals are no more likely to molest minors than heterosexuals—a claim not true in this instance. And since most journalists would rather help than harm the homosexual agenda, they engage in this obfuscation.
Objective journalists—a phrase that should be redundant—are suppose to report the facts without regard to their effect—positive or negative—on any given agenda. The masking of truth behind a politically-correct, agenda-driven smokescreen is not only anathema to the ethics of professional journalism, in this case, it also jeopardizes our nation’s young people. If we’re to solve the problem of sexually predatory priests, we need a clear view of what the problem is. And based on what we know so far, the primary problem is not pedophiles.
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:17 am
Catholics claim that the church merely “cuts off” the heretic and that “God” actually performs the destruction, but European history is replete with other examples — like the recent slaughter of the Orthodox Christian Serbs of Croatia:
“In a brutal terror campaign, more than half a million Serbs were killed, a quarter-million expelled, and two hundred thousand forced to convert to Catholicism. The [Catholic] Ustaša regime in Croatia, and particularly this drive in the summer of 1941 to exterminate and dispossess the Serbs, was one of the most horrendous episodes of World War II.
The murder methods applied by the Ustaša were extraordinarily primitive and sadistic: thousands were hurled from mountaintops, others were beaten to death or had their throats cut, entire villages were burned down, women raped, people sent in death marches in the middle of winter, and still others starved to death… Many Catholic priests, mainly of the lower rank, took an active part in the murder operations.” — Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
Coincidently, at the same time in nearby Bavaria, the young Catholic who is now Pope Benedict XVI was enrolled in the Hitler Youth organization…
* The Jewish Marxists who led the Bolshevik Revolution and controlled the new government (supported by their wealthy comrades in New York, London and Frankfurt) exterminated millions of Orthodox Christian farmers in Russia and Ukraine who opposed their program of “sovietization”. They eventually became the victims of the police state machinery they had created once Stalin turned against them years later.
“An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.” — Sever Plocker
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
ANY belief system which requires submission to a priest cult and its irrational dogma; which demands the suppression and slaughter of “heretics”; and which seeks to dominate the entire world in the process of establishing its utopia is a throwback to the dark ages.
This criteria applies equally well to Islam, Catholicism and Judaism to name three examples, each of which has condemned the others as “infidels” or worse. Let us not forget that the Catholic Nazis and the Jewish Bolsheviks* slaughtered more Europeans in the past century than all of the Islamic nations put together.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
@lostatsea1 (573): I alway love your takes on these subjects. It’s refreshing to hear a point of view similar to mine.
@Sarah (569):
@Stizzy (571):
To the both of you…I am not going to argue or discuss more with you. I knew I should have stayed out of this because it’s not worth my time talking with those that have blinders on.
Stizzy…I provided answers, but you will not understand them so I won’t bother re-hashing it again. Not worth my time.
Sarah…you provided one study and so did I. You said I lied. No matter what I put up, you will say the same thing. So, I won’t waste my time with you either.
@lostatsea1 (574): Excellent post as always. You take over. I can’t continue to argue with brick walls who fail to see anything past their little book. No matter what we say or provide, they will say it’s wrong or that it needs more clarification. I’m bored with this now.
Come visit me on facebook later, dear. We can chat about this and that alien view you had up further.
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ouuchan,
“Blinders on”? [laugh]
Thank you for proving me right. Liberals hate FACTS. You debate only with emotion and distortion.
Chal!
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
@oouchan(575):Those that wish to learn will, others are doomed to repeat history. Bye for now!
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 am
@Sarah (576): yea all liberals hate facts and debate with emotion and distortion. Just like all gays are perverse. C’mon, You believe in fairy tales. You disregard the facts as well when it goes aganist what you believe. Just like many people on here.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Engima,
Aas a 21 year old black African Catholic who resides in the UK, I love to see white liberals like you squirm when facts hit you in the face.
You claim I believe in fairytales, yet you cite NO example. Saying something is so, without proving it is so, or citing examples, doesn’t work in the adult world, hun.
Again, prvoven fact remains: 4 out of 5 abuses in the Catholic Church were comprised of homosexual priests molesting post pubescent boys- John Jay Study.
Homosexual predator priests caused the crisis in the Church, and honest homosexuals, like David France, ADMIT that.
Why can’t you?
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:13 am
@Sarah(576):Seems it is not only Catholics who are pedophiles!
intercourse with little girls .
JEWISH QUOTES
(from Talmud and other jewish religion books)
Yebhamoth 11b: “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age.”
Sanhedrin 54b. – A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
Sanhedrin 55b- A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years “and a day” old).
Aboda Sarah 37a: “A Gentile[non-jew] girl who is three years old can be violated.” The Talmudic source argues that since the tearing of the hymen at that age would bepermanent (as distinct from a younger girl whose hymen the rabbis believedwould grow back), she is considered to have reached a state of physicaldevelopment that her discharges would be included under the category ofimpure flows according to the Biblical purity laws.
Gad. Shas. 2:2: “A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”
Yebamoth 98a. – “All gentile[non-jew] children are animals.”
Abodah Zarah 36b. – “Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.”
Ketaboth 11b(footnote) – If a man were to have intercourse with a three year old the girl should not suffer the consequences of loss of virginity when she become eligible for marriage. and:
Approximately 5,000 pages of court documents have been amassed from twelve court record depositories in four states. These court documents are the result of twelve lawsuits that Defendants’ Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al. were involved with since 1999, although there have been many more lawsuits settled out of court by Defendants in the past decades. The records for the twelve cases along with commentary are being offered on a CD named “Secrets of Pedophilia in an American Religion – Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crisis” by Barbara Anderson
Pedophilia and beastiality in Islam runs rampant…because its allowed. PART 2
PEDOPHILIA LAWS FROM ISLAMIC-FATWA.NET
Question 1809
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)
Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of m More..ufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat – literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child) What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers – may Allah be pleased with her.’
Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men. Perhaps I have a jaded view on all three Abrahamic sects and their God and the wars waged in his name.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
@Sarah (580): Who said I was white? Are all liberals white? There you go judging again. So you are racist against whites, liberals, and gays now? You are a piece of work. I can tell you are only 21. You have no clue about the “adult world”. And no I am not squirming nor will I ever squirm to the irrelevant facts you post.
I never said anything about your facts in the first place. All I’m saying is that you sound like you are trying to justify the acts of the priests. Saying it’s their sexual behavior that leads to these crimes and that’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Show me facts that sexual preference leads to deviant behavior. Maybe these priests were gay (like the studies show) but sexual preference does not lead to that behavior. It’s that way of thinking that leads to problems.
You talk about %’s but there is a higher rate of straight child molesters and rapists then there are gay rapists. How could there be gay priests anyway? Doesn’t your supreme leader tell you it’s wrong in the first place. So they are hypocrites if they are going to preach but not practice. You also said they got rid of the gay priests to solve the problem. How do they do that? Do they just ask them? Come on.
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
@enigma (582): Two thumbs up!
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Quest for the Lost Civilization:
http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
lostatsea1, again the abuse in the Church was not one of paedophilia but homosexual pedastry.
I’m not even going to touch on what is happening in other religions.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
we all know that catholicism is not a good thing. Why should I ask a priest for forgiveness when I can ask God? One is either fallible or infallible, there is no middle ground or sometimes, and only God in heaven is infallible. I sometimes watch the catholic channel to see what’s going on, and the only one they pray to is Mary, who they ask to pray for them. You never or hardly hear them even call the name of God. Lastly, please let the priests get married, in all zones of catholicism, cause we know what happens on a daily basis right now.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
lostatsea1, again the abuse in the Church was not one of paedophilia but homosexual pedastry.
I’m not even going to touch on what is happening in other religions in too much depth.
I will say this however, the issue with Mohammed and his young wife is one of paedophilia, as he married Aisha at 6 years old and had full sexual relations with her when she was just 9.
There also seems to be some substance to claims that Mohammed “thighed” Aisha before 9 years old (use your imagination- he placed his “private parts” between her thighs) Now that is paedophilia, unquestionably.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
@Sarah (580): Here’s another question for you, since I don’t feel like reading about the study and you seem to have all the answers anyway.
Were these priests gay before they were ordained? Were they born interested in the same sex or did they become gay while serving a life of celibacy? A life without love and affection, without intimate touch and never being able to fulfill the natural human needs of desire while being around nothing but altar boys. Maybe they become that way after. They are humans just like everyone else. Prisoners usually aren’t gay before they go to prison. Then they rape men for whatever reason, could be sexual need or the need to feel empowered and in control, but its probably not because they are gay.
Does the study discuss that? That’s what I would like to know.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Enigma, I’d bet you a penny you are white, like most homosexual advocates. It is common knowledge that homosexuality is despised amongst Africans and many blacks in the Diaspora, hence 7 out of 10 black Americans voting in favour of Proposition 8.
People of colour tend to put the welfare of children before that of playing internet apologist for homosexual predators who destroy the lives of young boys.
You simply pay lip service to child protection- but not once have I seen a condemnation on yours or Oouchan’s part of the abuse homosexual priests have caused in the Church. I however, have made it clear that I would like to see capital punishment applied to all child abusers- including Catholic priests.
When you initially believed the abuse in the Church to be one of heterosexual paedophilia, hypocrites like yourself were so happy to condemn the Church.
When your perpetual victims, homosexual were subsequently proven to be the child predators, you remained silent in your condemnation of the priests per se, and their nature.
That is what is called HYPOCRISY.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy
hy⋅poc⋅ri⋅sy
1. A pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. A pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. An act or instance of hypocrisy.
I never said anything about your facts in the first place.
Liar. Again, Enigma- deal with facts. (This is going to be fun showing your numerous backtrackings and obfuscations)
1. You said on July 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
The act itself, whether the sicko was interested in young kids (paedophilia) or gay and liked young men who rape them (also called statutory rape), is immaterial. They are both SICK.
No- these two abuses are not immaterial. The way you solve older gay men abusing adolescent boys is different from the way you deal with solving the issue of paedophilia.
The two issues are, as you said, are “apples and oranges”.
2. You said on July 22nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hmm.. Let me just take a stab at this very interesting and complex question……..
Because they are YOUNG!! Duh in regards to me query what biological/ evolutionary traits which motivates so many aging homosexual men to make advances on very young males.
You chose to play dumb, and ignored the gist which I was trying to get to, which the intelligent poster GTT explained to you clearly. You clearly chose to ignore it.
Here is his explanation (GTT said):
OK, I was going to sit this one out but I think I need to jump in here and try to explain what I think Sarah is trying to say.
Yes, it is true that in their concious, rational minds these men are not attracted to young 20-year-olds thinking “Hum, this woman is hot because she can have lots of my babies!”
HOWEVER, biological tradition (including evolution, etc) have hardwired our brains in a certain way.
Over many, many years, men who were attracted to, had sex with and therefore had babies with were much more successful at passing on their genes than men who chose older women past their child-bearing prime. Evolution and natural selection being what they are, the genes that got passed down to us (and the conditioned behavior) was that men should be attracted to young, fertile females. That was the point of her argument.
Care to respond?…
I thought not.
Again, there is still no biological/ evolutionary component explaining homosexual men’s perverse attraction to young males.
All I’m saying is that you sound like you are trying to justify the acts of the priests. Saying it’s their sexual behavior that leads to these crimes and that’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
No, hun, clearly you are the dumb one. Studies are showing that the overrepresentation of homosexual men in the priesthood was the underlying factor in the abuses in the Church. Yet you still play min apologist for the homosexual movement.
I am not trying to justify the act. I have said repeatedly that death ought to be the reward for child abusers. You however, have fallen short of condemning the homosexuals who have abused young boys. It is YOU justifying the acts of abuse, providing it is homosexual men who are the predators.
Questions for you:
1. If the abuses in the Church were committed by predominantly heterosexual priests, would you be playing defence for the abusing Catholic priests as you are doing now?
Would you be making statements that heterosexuality in the priesthood leading to sexual abuse is “the dumbest thing I have ever heard”?? BE HONEST WITH THIS QUESTION.
2. Seeing as 80% of the abuses in the Church could have been prevented if there were no homosexual priests, if you were the Pope decades ago, and had the power to ban all homosexual entry into the priesthood, would you do so, in order to protect thousands of boys, or would you sacrifice the lives of young boys in order not to offend the homosexual community?
The way you answer question number 2 will reveal to me who true your concerns are for the welfare of children, over protecting homosexuals from having their images and feelings hurt.
July 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
You talk about %’s but there is a higher rate of straight child molesters and rapists then there are gay rapists.
Enimgma, I’d go take this part of the debate to Oouchan.
In an earlier post,Oouchan said that no more than 17% of paedophiles were homosexuals.
If her statistic is correct, let’s say that 17% of paedophiles are homosexuals. Let’s then factor in the FACT that homosexuals comprise no more than 1-4% of the world’s population.
What does that say about the overrepresentation of homosexuals in the paedophilia demographic? (It takes a little math to see that by Ouchan’s statistics, homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles. If you don’ t like this conclusion, then take it up with Ouchan who quoted the “17% statistic”.)
Again, the statistic came from Ouchan. You have provided no statistics and cite no sources whatsoever.
How could there be gay priests anyway?
You really aren’t that aware of the numerous scandals happening within Catholic circles, are you?…
I suggest you do a google search for “Catholic Church + homosexual priests” and do A LOT of reading.
It would take FAR too long for me to explain to you why up to 40% of priests- many whom are Bishops- are not only homosexual, but are practicing homosexuals- despite taking vows on celibacy.
Some books to read reviews on Amazon.com: Michael S Rose “Good bye Good Men” and Lawler’s “The Faithful Departed”.
You also said they got rid of the gay priests to solve the problem. How do they do that? Do they just ask them? Come on.
Most clergy know who is and who isn’t gay- believe me. Many homosexual priests are involved in same sex relationships and are known to some liberal Bishops. If these Bishops did their job, they’d get rid of them- but of course- bad leadership will not purge the Church of these traitors.
PS- in my 21 years of live, I clearly have mastered the skill of debating more than you. Remember, Enigma and Ouchan- fight with FACTS.
Oh, Ouchan, care to respond in full instead of hiding behind Enigma’s fabrications, backtrackings and lies, as I’d love to give you a internet verbal slap down too? [smile]
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@enigma (588):
@lostatsea1 (584):
It seems that this debate is now coming down to name calling and ignoring previous posts. ~sigh~
Your last post, enigma was good. Thank you for keeping this up. I am just sitting back and laughing at the whole show. Sorry that others aren’t playing nice with you. Have fun and enjoy!
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@Sarah (589): You a special child aren’t you?
Well more than 50% people voted for Prop 8. Not just African Americans. 60% of Californians are white and only 6% are black.
“People of colour tend to put the welfare of children before that of playing internet apologist for homosexual predators who destroy the lives of young boys.”
Yeah only people of color do that huh. I never apologized for them. Here are some of the comments I posted before.
Post #543 It’s all the same to me. Abuse on children is sick and disturbing and I can care less what its classified under.
Post #550 You rape a kid then there is something wrong with regardless of age. The act itself, whether the sicko was interested in young kids (pedophilia) or gay and liked young men who rape them (also called statutory rape), is immaterial. They are both SICK.
I condemn all behavior like that and not just homosexuals like you do. See my comments above. I never said anything bad about your church. The priests yes but not the church. You are the bigot.
You are justifying their actions and you are saying leave the church alone, there was no pedophilia. It was all because of the gays. THE PRIESTS BROKE THE LAW AND THEY IN TURN REPRESENT THE CHURCH.
Your comment.. “No- these two abuses are not immaterial. The way you solve older gay men abusing adolescent boys is different from the way you deal with solving the issue of pedophilia”
So you know how to solve these problems? Wow, congratulations. I’m talking to a genius.
Questions from you:
1. If the abuses in the Church were committed by predominantly heterosexual priests, would you be playing defense for the abusing Catholic priests as you are doing now?
—I never defended them in the first place. They are douche bags regardless. Maybe I am defending homosexuals in general but definitely not the priests. You can’t just their blame sexual preference for their actions. So you are Sigmund Freud now?
Would you be making statements that heterosexuality in the priesthood leading to sexual abuse is “the dumbest thing I have ever heard”?? BE HONEST WITH THIS QUESTION.
—Yes. Sexual preference is not a cause for deviant behavior. Like I said show me the studies on that and why you think that way. Bet you can’t.
2. Seeing as 80% of the abuses in the Church could have been prevented if there were no homosexual priests, if you were the Pope decades ago, and had the power to ban all homosexual entry into the priesthood, would you do so, in order to protect thousands of boys, or would you sacrifice the lives of young boys in order not to offend the homosexual community?
—So the 20% of abuses done by heterosexuals is okay right. The pope can’t deny them into priesthood. Even if one kid is hurt then that is too much. What are your suggestions about that?? Wouldn’t you do anything to prevent that. Maybe we should not allow priests to see kids at all because there is a chance that they will rape them.
Wake up Sarah.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
@oouchan (591): Thanks oouchan. It’s exhausting though. You just can’t reason with people like that.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
@enigma (593): I know. Most of it is someone being drunk on their own superiority. Keep up the good fight if you can.
I won’t address anything further since I am out of this which I posted earlier.
I have had better conversations with my cat.
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
When I asked how there can be gay priests I wasn’t serious. I was just saying that because it is a big no-no according to Catholicism and god.
“..up to 40% of priests- many whom are Bishops- are not only homosexual, but are practicing homosexuals- despite taking vows on celibacy.”
—So what does that say about your church? That’s a big % don’t you think? So what’s your excuse for gays being attracted to being clergymen? Where is your case study on that?
“Most clergy know who is and who isn’t gay- believe me. Many homosexual priests are involved in same sex relationships and are known to some liberal Bishops. If these Bishops did their job, they’d get rid of them- but of course- bad leadership will not purge the Church of these traitors.”
—more problems with the church. We are not condemning the Catholic Church. You guys are doing a good job at that by yourselves.
“PS- in my 21 years of live, I clearly have mastered the skill of debating more than you. Remember, Enigma and Ouchan- fight with FACTS.”
—You showed only 1 study!! And from that you become a bigot and hate gays. You blame them for the raping of the kids. You don’t question anything else about it.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THEY RAPE PEOPLE? BECAUSE THEY LIKE MEN? ARE YOU THAT IGNORANT?
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@Sarah(589):Please tell that to men who rape young girls in Africa and then hack them to death! Power corrupts whether black, white, straight or gay. Read ‘Lost Innocence’ about the Latter Day Saints a Mormon offshoot.
Anyway I’m going back to watching ‘Quest for the Lost Civilization’ I highly recomend it..from Ankor Wat to ancient Egypt, Aztec, Nazca all built to honour gods who came from the stars Orion and Draco and the engmatic Dogon tribe who worship Sirius. Much more informative than this squabble!!
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
@enigma (582):
Now, I´m not out to defend anyone in particular but I think some people are not understanding the argument being presented.
While it is NOT an excuse, technically the abuse is not paedophilia but pederasty (or statutory rape). Some people might think it´s “only a word” but in the interest of fairness, I think we should try to be as accurate as possible.
Now, “%’s but there is a higher rate of straight child molesters and rapists then there are gay rapists…”
True, but I think it is important to look at the proportion of each group. What % of convicted paedophiles and statutory rapists are homosexual? It would be interesting to compare it to the 4% of homosexuals in the general population… IF, for example, 20% of those convicted were in fact gay, then they represent an unproportional % of the total, wouldnt you think? IF, on the other hand, an even 4% of those convicted were homosexual, then you can say that sexual orientation apparently has no influence on the proportion of abusers.
In any case, let´s look at the facts regarding the Church scandal that she presented:
- 80% of the abuse in the Church involved homosexuals priests molesting boys between the ages of 10-17.
An overwhelming majority of cases involved homosexual (NOT heterosexual) abuse. This in no way excuses the behavior but I think it goes to the point Sarah was trying to make about the Church taking steps to avoid homosexuals in seminary (though I think a good psychological evalution would also be helpful!).
“Doesn’t your supreme leader tell you it’s wrong in the first place. So they are hypocrites if they are going to preach but not practice.”
Yes, homosexuality is rather inconsistent with the teachings of the Church as it is regarded as a sin. However, so are lying, cheating, etc and people still fall prey to those sins too. The point is priests are also HUMAN and humans make mistakes.
Now, I think it is important to note the following: no more than 4% of the Catholic clergy have been found to have involvement in these abuses. I wonder if anyone has the %s of convicted/suspected abuses in places like schools, youth groups, etc?? It irritates me when people assume that the entire Church is inherently evil because a small % of its members were accused.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
@Oouchan:
To the both of you…I am not going to argue or discuss more with you. I knew I should have stayed out of this because it’s not worth my time talking with those that have blinders on.
Stizzy…I provided answers, but you will not understand them so I won’t bother re-hashing it again. Not worth my time
That’s fair enough and I’ll respect your desire to opit out, but to say I will not understand because (a) I don’t agree with your position and (b) found it lacking and asked you to provide a better argument seems a bit…how shall I put it…scornful. But no worries, as always it’s been a pleasure
July 24th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Wow. So much anger.
@masterdre (586): We talked about all those issues you had listed earlier in the discussion if you want to know what the Church’s stance on them are.
Spewing hate never solves problems.
July 25th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I’m wondering about the section on Idolatry. Isn’t it true that Catholics pray to Mary and Saints?
July 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
@Sarah (589): People of colour tend to put the welfare of children before that of playing internet apologist for homosexual predators who destroy the lives of young boys.
Oh lol. Please tell us more, so we can all aspire to be just like you.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:01 am
@Sarah (589):
Just a minor detail… GTT is a she!
Now: “People of colour tend to put the welfare of children before that of playing internet apologist for homosexual predators who destroy the lives of young boys…”
Where do you get this? How in the world do you even come up with that conclusion? And with this, I am done with this debate.
*****
@chandlerlady (600):
Please, read the comments above. This issue has been coverd extensively.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:09 am
I’m pretty sure that a high percentage of the population was illiterate in the middle ages and so obviously couldn’t read or understand the bible for that reason, not because the Catholic Church discouraged it.
As for item number 9, why do Catholics say 10 Hail Marys’ in the rosary and only one Our Father and one Glory Be. Basically Catholics say one prayer to the father (Our Father), ten to the Virgin Mary (Hail Mary) and another to the holy trinity (Glory Be) in a decade of the rosary. Also when did Jesus (I do apologize if I’m wrong about this, I’m no expert on the subject) tell us to constantly worship his mother.
Item number one was almost certainly a myth spread by Protestants to prove the Catholic Church is wrong.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
@Norman (603): Here is a short explanation on what a “Hail Mary” consists of.
It is commonly described as consisting of three parts.
The first, “Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women”, embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28).
The second, “and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)”, is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42).
Finally, the petition “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” is stated by the official “Catechism of the Council of Trent” to have been framed by the Church itself as a petition for Mary to pray for us and with us.
The Rosary focuses not on Mary’s life, but on Jesus’. So the repetitions of the Hail Mary are used as a form of meditation. We are honoring Mary’s role in Jesus’ life and asking her to bring us closer to Jesus. It is commonly misunderstood that the Hail Mary elevates Mary to the status of Godhood. This is not the case. Instead, one merely is asking for Mary’s attention and prayers. Since Christians believe in an afterlife, it is not uncommon to talk to one’s dead relatives, or to the saints and ask for their prayers. This is different than supplications to God.
Repetition of prayers is a quite common way to produce a meditative state in which one may have more access to the divine. Most people do not have to fumble over the Hail Mary, since they know it by heart. The repetition allows one to shut off the conscious part of one’s mind and achieve union with God in a very different way than a more consciously produced prayer.
Also, don’t forget the prayer of Fatima: O my Jesus, save us from the fires of Hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in need of thy mercy.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
@Becky(604)How can Mary be mother of God? If God created the universe where did she come from?
July 29th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@lostatsea1 (605): Mary is not the mother of God the Father. In Roman Catholicism the Divine Trinity is recognized; God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. These are not three gods, but One God in three guises.
Mary was the Mother of Jesus, or the Son of God.
I am a die-hard evolutionist, I study the sciences throughly and have no argument with any of them. That does not take away one iota of my Catholicism, as even my religion believes in my science.
How perfect that this will be my last post on LV.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@segues(606):Last post! Oh no!:( My post above meant no disrespect, it’s just my inability to wrap my mind around the biblical stories, as, since I believe these Godlike beings portrayed in the bible might well have been aliens! As so many ancient and aboriginal cultures all have legends of beings from the stars, that possibility is hard for me to ignore. Not to disuade you from your beliefs of course!
I’m sure I speak for all, that you will be missed.
Best of luck.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@segues (606):
Where you going? It´s so sad that so many of the old regulars are leaving… Here´s hoping you´ll be back but in case you aren´t, you will be missed!
“I am a die-hard evolutionist, I study the sciences throughly and have no argument with any of them. That does not take away one iota of my Catholicism, as even my religion believes in my science.”
Me too. And that´s why I dont understand the extremists on either side. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:05 am
Statistics this, percentage that. Sounds like propaganda to me. The kind of attitude displayed by every single post here makes me very sad. Does no-one care about the message anymore?
Love your niegbour as yourself. That includes your enemies by the way.
If you get slaped in the face turn the other cheek, ring a bell?
The message is what is important. The bible is our guideline to living a beter and more fufilling life. The messages are clear to those who want to understand.
Just as a interesting footnote : To commit sodomy is for a man to have anal sex regadless if it is a man or woman. In the bible Sodom was destroyed by God for immoral acts of lust. To say that to be “gay” is something you are born with may be correct but that does not mean you should act on it. Many serial killers say they were born that way but it is still wrong for them to act on thier blood lust.
You cannot save someone who does not want to be saved and that my friends is a sin that cannot be forgiven. It is considered a sin against the Holy Spirit. Part of forgivness and repentance is to forgive yourself, but if you believe with all your heart you have done nothing wrong even although it IS wrong you will never be forgiven.
As you judge others so you will be judged. The only one who has any right to judge is God.
God bless you all
July 31st, 2009 at 8:56 am
@PitBoss (609): To say that to be “gay” is something you are born with may be correct but that does not mean you should act on it. Many serial killers say they were born that way but it is still wrong for them to act on thier blood lust.
Hang on there, bible-thumper. The difference is, the act of a serial killer is one that grossly violates the rights of someone else, whereas the other is a natural act (to them) that hurts no one. To equate the two as being even remotely similar is utterly preposterous.
As you judge others so you will be judged. The only one who has any right to judge is God.
You just judged homosexuals by saying that their actions are wrong and you insinuate your agreement that all homosexual actions are only driven by lust. You sinning hypocrite.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:25 am
@PitBoss (609):
PitBoss i beg of you, please, please do some research in to your religion and it’s history. Be big enough and brave enough to challenge your faith and look at both sides of the argument. I understand that it must be nigh on impossible for you to do this but please try.
For those of us who were lucky enough to be brought up in a household where no childhood indotrination took place, and we were left to make up our own minds about issues such as religion, it is very frustrating to listen to someone like yourself spouting your nonsense.
With the benefit of an impartial mind it becomes painfully obvious that there is in fact no god and religion is at best a sham and at worst a devastating tool to be used by those who wish to do so.
If you do not have the decency to explore both sides of the argument, then please could you refrain from throwing your religious babble in to the mix as if it is worth something.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
…We are all biased here now, aren’t we?
August 1st, 2009 at 6:44 am
Inaugural vision (Ezekiel 1:1–3:27)- The first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel begins with Ezekiel’s record of his vision of God’s spectacular chariot (see Merkabah).[4] In this vision, God approaches Ezekiel as a divine warrior, riding in his battle chariot. This chariot appeared to be drawn by four living creatures each having four faces (of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle), and four wings. They could travel forward and backward, up and down, and they moved in flashes of lightning. Beside each “living creature” was a beryl-colored wheel, constructed as “a wheel within a wheel,” with “tall and awesome” rims that were full of eyes all around. In this appearance of God unto Ezekiel here, he commissions him to be a prophet and a “watchman” in Israel: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites.” (2:3)
Curious that a God who created the universe would need a ‘battle chariot’ sounds more like aliens to me! The description resembles a spaceship!
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 am
Deliver Us From Evil http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 am
The RC church is the biggest most brainwashing cult of all. They justify anything they do.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:59 am
Here is another possible misconception. Early manuscripts of the Book of Revelations say that the number of the best was 616, not the more common 666. According to Iranaeus these were just scribal errors and anyone who asked John about it, said the number was 666. However the number of the beast being 616 probably pre dates 666 versions by about 100 years.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:05 am
uh all you guys that are still confused about history and catholic beliefs like worshiping statues.which is never taught in the catholic church and I don’t know or heard anyone that does, get yourself a catechism and read the Bible and read early church fathers like St Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110AD.Did you know he was the first to call the Christian church “universal”Katholikos meaning catholic giving unity to all the Christian churches under the bishop of Rome to separate from the heretics running around confusing everyone.lol nothing much has change these days thanks to Martin Luther and his merry men like Calvin.If you want a glimpse of the past look at modern America and the world where the church is attacked by everyone just like the early heretics and Romans of Europe and Greece.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:16 am
Mary Mother of God.Thats another confusing topic for many catholics and non catholics but you only need to read scripture to understand why catholics believe this… Luke 1:43 (And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?) This is Elizabeth talking to Mary..If Elizabeth thinks she is the Mother of her Lord then so do I.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 am
Praying to Saints.The word “saint” is French meaning “Holy” stemming from the Latin “Sanctus”Many Protestants and catholics don’t know why we pray to saints or for what purpose.Well it is the same if you asked your mother or Pastor to pray for you.1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something “good and pleasing to God,” not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth.But are our prayers heard by prayers offered up by saints that we have prayed to.Well this can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. The Bible also directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!” (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: “[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).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. 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). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:18 am
Why was the bible forbidden.???Well it wasn’t.In the “Middle Ages”, due to a particular heresy (the Albigensians), a ‘heretical’ Bible WAS off limits (these people having taken the Bible and altered it to reflect their heretical views).Like the modern World Translation Bible – Jehovah Witness Bible.
These are the Bibles that were forbidden not the catholic Bible.For the reason why the bible was in Latin well for the simple reason that the whole Roman Empire was literate in Latin.like what English is in our times.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
‘Mein Gott im Himmel’ Sorry no umlauts! Can’t imagine we still have problems understanding cult worship and the effigees they embrace, we should instead follow the basic premise of loving ones’ neighbours as one would ones’self!
It is so simple as ‘John Lennon’ Imagined!
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I am a Catholic. This is what i have to say:
#10. Those who say that the church disouraged bible reading are correct because their bibles are not catholic and non catholic bilbles are a no no to catholics…
#9. Mother Mary intercedes for us like at the wedding feast at Cana. Jesus obeyed Mother Mary, but His will is still to be done, instead of multiplying wine he made wine from water…
#8. Catholics are christians, those who say they are not are not christian enough…
#7. Those that allege/accuse that the pope is infallible in all things are themselves fallible in all things including their judgment and moral certainty…
#6. Father Gregor Johann Mendel is the father of modern genetics… Duh!!!!
#5. Indeed, love covers a multitude of sins…. (1Peter 4:8). I wonder if asking forgiveness without action can fathom this…. Faith alone?
#4. Emperor Constantine invented the Catholic Church in 325 AD? This is a modern-day-invented accusation…
#3. Celibacy in the catholic church is not a dogma, it is a matter of Rite… Why do we need to allow all priests to marry if they do well by remaining single…
#2. Modified Bible – n. A Bible made by Protestants after the Protestant Deformation…
#1. Papacy is not a medievel invention. Those who strongly suggest knows only history until medieval times…
August 4th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Good one lourdito33.There is definatly a lack of educated people who take snap shots of the scripture and don’t understand.The common one is worshiping statues.Why cant people read the commandment properly.”Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.”
Now that is what protestants like to show catholics to prove them wrong but as always they forget to read the next verse 20:5 “Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me”
People they are efergies not made for worship.Like the pictures in a book.They are reminders of Extraordinary people.How many of you have a picture of a family member that has died and been placed on the wall.If i came into your house and said that was idol worship you would probably throw me out in the street for offending you.well guess what thats the same feeling we get when we are accused of the same thing.People, read the Bible properly and stop taking snapshots of verses.Just remember it was the church that gave us the bible not the other way round.
Did you know after this scene with Moses God commanded he make 5 foot cheribim angels along side the ark to put on the high alter Exodus 37:7-9 Two cherubims also of beaten gold, which he set on the two sides of the propitiatory: 8 One cherub in the top of one side, and the other cherub in the top of the other side: two cherubims at the two ends of the propitiatory, 9 Spreading their wings, and covering the propitiatory, and looking one towards the other, and towards it.”Did God contradict his own commandment???NO!!!
Because they weren’t made for worship.Or in Numbers 21:6 when Moses was commanded to make an “effergy” of a brazen serpent to heal from there wounds and save the jews from snakes because they had sinned, “6 Wherefore the Lord sent among the people fiery serpents, which bit them and killed many of them. 7 Upon which they came to Moses, and said: We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and thee: pray that he may take away these serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. 9 Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed. Wow another contradiction.NOOO!! its not because it wasn’t made for worship.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:21 am
And about John Lennon.Please thats a weak and lazy excuse.
He was part of an Indian cult with the rest of the Beatles way before he made this song.And like all cults they disappear.The catholic church is still here.So he is not a very good example.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Oh and for Norman the 666 is not a Beast its a man Apocalypse 13:18 Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man: and the number of him is six hundred sixty-six.
Well he might act like a beast.Some suggest he was Nero.
The Rosary are based on New testament events separated at every decade.From the Incarnation Luke1:26, to the Coronation of Mary in Heaven.Apoc 12:1 .Each event is biblical and we contemplate on these events.
The our Father was taught by Christ himself to pray.The Hail Mary is part salutation of the Angel Gabriel and other part asking for her to pray for us which I explained already about praying to saints.”The Glory Be” is a Glorification pray to the Trinity”.”O my Jesus” is a pray asking Christ to forgive us and others.”Hail Holy Queen” prayer much like the Hail Mary where we ask her to pray for us.
Why honor Mary well again its in the scripture.lol I can see all the Protestants jumping up and down.lol…
Well if you read Luke she is Hailed by an angel.This is strong language coming from an angel. That language is only reserved for someone with a magisterial position.Mainly a king or queen.
She was full of grace according to the angel.How many of you know anyone that is full of grace.lol no one right.
As a catholic it is not Faith or works that get you to heaven it is Grace.Faith and works are the mechanism to achieve grace.She already had it.It takes us a life time to obtain “full” of grace.That means your spotless of sin.She was already full of grace.
Thirdly she receives not one Blessing , but a Triple Blessing.once by the Angel and twice by Elizabeth.Luke 1:26-55
Luke 1:48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.That is a prophecy which I think Protestants need to examine.Catholics are the only one that honor this prophecy.Jesus didn’t deny the fact that she was blessed either Luke 11:27
I already explained why she is Mother of God Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
What does the fourth commandment tell us.Exodus 20:12, also in Eph.6: Honor thy father and thy mother.
And so do we because in that great revelation to John at the foot of the cross.John 19:26 Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold THY MOTHER.
Its all biblical…God Bless
August 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
@Alex
Thanks for the info and correction. I’m not too good on the bible. So what do you think? Is the number 666 or 616?
August 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Is Jesus God.Well I see a jehovah Witness on here so there is one passage out of all the passages that stand out about Jesus being God.John 20:27 Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. 28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.Jesus never corrects him and did yo notice it says “said to him”
This verse speaks for itself and noone from Islam to jehovah Witness can difuse that verse.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:42 am
We are told that the number of the beast is 666 and that this is the number of a man’s name (13:18). Not coincidentally, the persecuting, pagan Roman Empire was headed in the A.D. 60s by Caesar Nero, whose name happened to add up to 666 in the Hebrew system of letters and numbers. (In Hebrew, “Caesar Nero” = “NRWN QSR” = N 50 + R 200 + W 6 + N 50 + Q 100 + S 60 + R 200 = 666; a variant spelling of the name, NRW QSR, adds up to 616, which some manuscripts have in place of 666).
August 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Answer to Norman.Hebrew letters of Nero’s name were nrwn qsr, numerically that is 666. Translations in Latin gave the beast the number 616 because Nero’s name in the Latin form of hebrew letters is nrw qsr. “The early Christian Latinists knew the reference was to Nero, and they translated the numbers accordingly.”
If your interest is in the Apocolypse I suggest you read Schott Hahn book “The Lambs Supper”.It will surprise you what what the early Christian understood in St. Johns writing.God Bless
August 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Some of these are just dumb! Catholics aren’t Christians!
I was brought up a Catholic but the Church has done so much crazy shit in the past that the current pr move to try and white wash it liberal isn’t gonna convince anyone,especially with its current neo-nazi public speaking kryptonite padre. And besides i like swearing, sodomy and rationality far too much to subscribe to what is essentially the largest organization of hypocritical prudes around. Although its still useful to say “im catholic” to scare away all the Mormons and Jehovah’s who come a-knocking!
August 24th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I seem to be one of the few people raised Catholic that can appreciate it, excluding my entire family. The Catholic Church has probably done more good for the world than any other organization and enough evil to make it badass as all hell. It’s not like there are any Gnostics around to post on this site, because THEY ARE ALL FUCKING DEAD.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:28 am
please don’t blame past mistakes being made by past leaders of the church. now it is being corrected by the help of evangelization. stop blaming popes or constantine, or anyone else. they’re also human beings, imperfect, mortals. and before you condemn anyone, any kind of religion, ask first yourself if you have done anything to correct those misconception. “HE WHO DON’T SIN SHOULD CAST THE FIRST STONE”. work for your faith, for the betterment of man and church. you don’t have to get crucified to be acknowledged. fight for your faith in god, for that is the only way to be saved. “WORK WITH YOUR FAITH, WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING”!
September 1st, 2009 at 3:20 am
For us Oerthodox Christians, Catholicism is an herecy.
Not because there are big differences in the doctrine or he interpretation of the Bible. but because of Pope.
Our Archibishop is a priest. He is the first among equal priests.
Pope, the Vatican and all this story is not a religious thing but a social, a civilian act. Pope is the Governor of a country. Can you specify a part of the Bilbe where says that Christ has earthy belongings?
The other reason is of course crusades that destroy not only arabic and muslim countries but Konstantinople too.
And they offer eastern Roam Empire to the Turks.
Always Catholics were against Greece and Orthodox.
It’s a shame.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:26 am
Most of the items on the list are wrong.
Catholicism came after the schism in eleventh century.
Till then, both churches Roman and Greek were under the same rules.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
There are four times the bible is read during mass–don’t forget the psalms.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:41 am
From experience and actual practice, many of these “myths” have proven to be true. Even though some of them are officially opposed by the church, lay Catholics, probably ignorant as they are have worshiped Mary and have put more trust to Mary than Jesus. Rationalizations and classification fall short in explaining what has defined Catholic spirituality. Indulgences have been put to a stop thanks to Martin Luther and the Protestant reformation. The Bible was prevented from reaching the public due to being stolen? Well does this explain how countless martyrs were burned in the stake for translating and distributing the Bible? Catholic priests getting married? Your article tries to evade the question by focusing on non-Roman Catholic Churches. If you try to evade historical truth, you might just want to travel back in time and see how wrong many of your refutations are.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:45 am
funny how the comments is not as much as the second list bout Islam
September 19th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
To Orthodox,
St. Chrysodom,considered the Patriach of the Orthodox, considered St Peter to be the PROTOS.The first of the Apostles.Why??? read Matthew 16:17.That is an authority.Peter is mentioned more times in the Bible than any other Apostle.1 peter 1:1 ,Mark is considered Peters son.As he is a FATHER to mark. (in the Greek Pappas)St Irenaus of lyon in his book Against the Heresies,book 3,chapter 3, mentions the list of Popes after Peter.
The earliest councils where the popes lay were in Rome.St ignatus of Antioch says “where you find Peter you will find the church”.110 AD.He was the first to call the church CAtholic aswell.Origin and St Augustine also shows a list.
your date of 1054 when the east and west seperated was not the first time.that was the last time the eastern churchs split over the FILIOQUE and other issues. In the creed it is mentioned that the “proceeds through Father and son”.That was the heresy the Eastern churches didnt agree with because the creed should not be changed and that was the east seperated.The problem with orthodox is Prudence.Thats no excuse.The creed is a Dogma made through the Tradition of the Church.And its changable under the infability of the succeser of Peter.It didnt change theology of the creed it embraced the trinity.Because there was a heresy around concerning the divinity of christ.and to protect the divinity of Christ the Church added the words “proceeds through the Father and Son”was added to the creed at the Council of Toledo.Now this was not bound for all to say only to except the theology of this matter.You only have to look at the Byzantine Catholic Churches to see this.They dont say “proceeds through the son”But they except the theology.
Now thats just a rough say on this matter and I can spend all day on this.But I will like to say that the matter of the FILIOQUE is not a major concern today and some Orthodox agree with the Theology but for the ones that dont it is more of a matter of Nationalism and pride against the church and also some understandable reasons of historical pain that happened during the crusades.Especially in Constantinople.My question for the groups who are pro orthodox who disagree with the FILIOQUE and the change of the creed,what do you worship,the formula of the church or the theology of the church???And when was the last Ecumenical councils meeting with the orthodox???The answer is 1054AD.The catholic church, October 11, 1962AD.We must have the eastern church come back in communion with the church.
One last thing in defence of the FILIOQUE read Revelation 22:1 It reads ” And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb” Who is the Lamb???Christ…..!!! Proceeds through the Father and Son.
God Bless
September 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
to orthodox
not just the same rules but the same Pope
September 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
you protestants who say the catholics are full of bad popes and bad organization have to look at yourselves for a second.At least we have one.Second do you believe the bible is the inspired word of God.??And do you believe people like Moses,King David and St Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit to give us scripture??Well consider the fact that Moses and St Paul were murderers and King David was a murderer and a adulterer.Yet you are happy to say I follow and believe them.Just because there are bad Christians doesnt mean the Doctrine is bad.The word of God is perfect not people.
God Bless
September 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Martin Luther was anti semetic.Kenneth you need do work against your bias thoughts and do some independent study.I thought like you once and man I did my own reaserch without any catholic teacher to help me and I was blown away with so much garbage out there and people actually believed happened.I suggest you start with a book called Mere Christianity by newman.He kicked me out of the gnostic thinking.And another book by Karl Keating called Catholism and Fundamentalism.Use it as a reference to help you study.try and prove this book wrong.I bet you cant.
God bless
September 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
#1
I am not the pope because someone or a group of people said so.
#2
The Bible was written at Niceea by corrupt church officials and they wrote it so it will suite their own interests. Vatican was involved in massive laundering money for the Sicilian Mafia, money made from drug traffic. Also Vatican supported Musollini and the Fascism in return for money and other (many other) benefits from Musollini. The list of vatican and catholic hypocrisy could go on and on. As for #10, they should discourage the bible reading. I was a very good christian until I rode that shit.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Stizzy – I love your knowledge of the bible. My sister has terminal cancer which has really made me start studing the bible and biblical history. I have a few questions that are very important to me. Would you be willing to answer them for me. You seem to have a true knowledge of the bible.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:38 am
This is in response to archiealt:
You’re judging the Church based on the actions of INDIVIDUALS, not the Church, which is pure. Study the doctrine, not the people who clearly didn’t follow the Church’s teachings.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:50 am
@ (78) — about patron saints, it is one’s choice whether to pray for the intercessory actions by saints. You don’t have to do this. You can pray directly to God if you so wish. However, I know that the saints are in Heaven, and if this is so, then why not ask for more prayers?
October 21st, 2009 at 8:53 am
Don’t forget, Kenneth (636), looking at actions by people in history do not define the great religious organization that they have strayed away from.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Regarding your knowledge of the crusades and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, I think you need more research. The 4th crusade of the early 13th century did indeed result in the sacking of Constantinople by Europeans. However, the pope told them not to do this, while Venetian duke urged them on. The Europeans then established their own government in Constantinople, so it the reign never returned to the Eastern rulers. The Turks then invaded, sacked, and forced the Europeans out of Constantinople in the 15th century.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I was shocked at the ignorance and prejudice of many of the people when I started reading the comments. First, I believe in the power of education and knowledge. If you want to make a valid statement, please spell the words you choose to use correctly. This will make people think that you are at least somewhat intelligent and somewhat knowledgeable.
Second, the key to obtaining both knowledge and faith is having an open mind, so that you can make your own best judgement on matters of faith. I’m a devout Catholic; however, I do not blindly follow. I read numerous texts and writings, both ancient and modern, to learn more about my faith and God. Most priests and nuns that I know are intellectuals who are very open-minded, logical and accepting to the many diverse people around them.
To the individuals who are making comments about priests and alter boys…shame on you. You are being judgmental. Research will show that pedophiles do not belong to a particular religion, race, or culture. There are pedophiles in every religion, race and culture. Priests are human beings and therefore, are not perfect. This is not an excuse for their actions at all, but let’s remember that most priests are not pedophiles. Those who have preyed among young children should be punished for their actions and receive medical treatment. Also, being celibate does not create a pedophile. It is a mental disorder that needs proper treatment.
I believe that there should be a good, healthy debate among people of all religions and beliefs. That is, having an open mind and heart to the many possibilities that God presents to us each and everyday, to become more understanding and loving individuals.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:15 am
sooo… thought exercise for you atheists
i would like you to prove to me that you exist. seriously try it. It can not be done. Cogito Ergo Sum (i think there for i am) is the best proof of existence but it only works when applied to oneself, you cant prove to me that you are capable of thought. what then is my reaction to this then? Do i get to freely discredit everything you say? can i ridicule everyone who claims that you do in fact exist? Further more if you were to teach me some lesson, lets say about how life is valuable and i decide to follow this lesson the rest of my life then what is wrong with my belief in your existence?
November 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@joliver (17): I’m Filipino, too. So I feel I need to point this out…
Christianity came to our nation as a tool for conquest. The Spanish friars used church teachings as a very effective form of control. To this day, the vast majority of us know very little to nothing about our culture prior to the arrival of the Spanish.
One of the ways they did this was to substitute Christian images/symbols in many of our established forms of worship. That is where you get some of our stranger forms of local Christianity. Over the centuries, many different sects emerged from this synthesis. From relatively benign ones like the Rizalista Church (who venerate our national hero as the second coming of Christ) to stupidly reckless ones like El Shaddai (who could give American pentecostal churches a run for their money). Even “mainstream” Catholicism does not remain untouched by this synthesis.
Thankfully, The modern Catholic church in the Philippines discourages idolatry. But centuries of indoctrination do not change overnight.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:16 am
i quite enjoyed this article, though i can’t say i personaly learnt much.
i must say though that i think the article is far from unbiased and in the end creates several misconceptions.
for example the article confuses being able to trace a lineage of practices to the early church and being the same thing as the early church. i personally find it amazing and exciting that the Catholic church can trace that connection, but it does not mean that those early church goers would be able to walk into a Catholic meeting today and feel right at home. it also does not mean that the Protestant or Orthodox demoninations are any less able to trace a lineage to the early church. the only real difference is that the Protestant demoninations don’t put any real value on such lineage because they don’t see the head of the church as being heriditary.
the other thing that kept on creeping up was the strange use of the term ‘religion’ which ultimately reinforced the myth that Catholics and Christians are seperate things, rather than denying. inspite of the authors adamance that Catholicism is a form (if not the original form) of Christianty, later refering to other denominations (such as protestant ones) as other ‘religions’ really undermines the connection that they tried to explain.
December 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
There is strong evidence that the seminary system fosters paedophilia.
December 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
even though you say your intent was to debunk these misconceptions my opinion is that it reads biased, as though a little too strong of a defense is being made.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@wheezer (653): I didn’t read it that way at all. Perhaps your bias is showing?
December 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@Woyzeck (652): Now that’s just silliness!
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:01 am
@archiealt (30): I think just because you are not religous you decide to certify the fact of god and christianity being ‘childish’ as you tell us to ‘grow up’. Maybe you may be sad and see life as little point before we die, and I see no problem in that, but just dont try and tell all us christians out there to grow up only because of your pathetic views