<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 03:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 03:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->or in this case the more specific RCC since all christians came from them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to nitpick, but they don't. Here's how it worked: <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1--> Christianity / \ Catholics Eastern Orthodox / | Protestants Modern Day Catholics <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2--> There are 3 branches of Christianity alive today.
Incorrect clam. Peter one of the apostles.. founded catholism, from there they split to christianity and the various sects thereof. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Many of the founding fathers of the "protestant" movement came from the RCC - durring the reformation. It was called the reformation because they beleived that is what they were doing - reforming christianity back to what it was. Soli Scriptori was a common battle cry (Only Scripture). It was a battle of authority - the Bible v. Tradition
So where do I put the RCC in the whole gammet of things? - I think their authority comes from tradition a whole lot more than it does from the Bible. If you are looking for a solid defence of the Bible, the RCC is not your best bet.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Incorrect clam. Peter one of the apostles.. founded catholism, from there they split to christianity and the various sects thereof. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> umm, no.
They claim lineage through Peter based on some sketchy interpretation of Scripture. It is more of an authority thing than anything else - Jesus, Peter, Papal legacy - and it wraps up a whole bunch of other doctrine (infalability of the pope, keys of the kingdom) - neither of which have any Biblical base.
The claim to Peter is a means to control people. I bet Peter rolls over in his grave every time an RCC tries to make / use that claim (Peter is dizzy now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
I disagree Pepe, while I was in elementary school. (Yes it was a catholic one) They very righteously defended everything in the bible. Even more so then anyone I have ever met and they defended it literally, not with interpetations.
Of course this is my experience, and unless you have been to a catholic school, not out of the question, I will base it on that.
To make things easier, I am going to say upfront that I agree with Pepe's position, and add that the RCC has corrupted the truth in the Bible.
Something interesting to ponder is why there are different languages (if you do not believe the Bible.) There is no logical reason why so many different and diverse languages should have been formed on a planet as small as ours, expecially since we all have a common origin.
Except the diverity in language follows the Divine purpose, which is to keep the nations seperated and if you think about how many different ways it does that, you might be amazed how it literally prevents a human "utopia" because of people's language! it stems nationalism and pride, we will <b>not </b>all be brothers and sisters with nationalism and pride. (I love "CommunistWithAGun" so I added this paragraph)
Assuming you want to understand the Bible, you must look at the Divine purpose perscribed in it. That purpose is to have the divine character. "God manifestation not human salvation" is the Divine purpose. It is the only thing that makes sense to answer the critics who propose that an all-powerful being could prevent all the human problems, but the Divine purpose isn't to prevent hunger, illness, pain, suffering, and death; those are allowed for our learning.
We learn obediance through suffering, just as Jesus Christ did.
Also, the clergymen will never sufficently answer your questions Cyndane, they are drunk with the wine (doctrine) of the great whor*, mentioned in Revelation.
EDIT: added this paragraph:
I think that the "churches" after the 400s had completely lost the Truth delivered in the Bible, and now, you will very rarely find anyone who can answer straightforward questions about the Bible, because of all the paganism which has been added.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Incorrect clam. Peter one of the apostles.. founded catholism, from there they split to christianity and the various sects thereof. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Christian-lineage.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the Western world, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and had made some small inroads into the Far East as well. For the most part it had remained fairly unified in its fundamental beliefs with major theological disagreements being resolved in council. But as the millennium approached, certain major differences in theology and practice became increasingly troublesome. <b>The Great Schism of 1054 split the Church into Western and Eastern churches: the Western church gradually consolidated into the Roman Catholic Church under the central authority of Rome (see Catholicism), while the Eastern church adopted the name "Orthodox" to emphasize their commitment to preserving the traditions of the church and resistance to change.</b> This Eastern Church refused to be consolidated under a single bishop, as this was completely alien to the structure the church had hitherto enjoyed. The Eastern Church recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as the "First among equals" of the numerous bishops in charge of its autocephalous churches (see Eastern Orthodoxy).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it depends on how you define Catholicism.
Also, I've always thought that Catholic traditions were created as a tool in order to help people understand the Bible and live according to Jesus' wishes. Martin Luther didn't post his theses in order to go against Catholicism, but just against the corruption that had occured within the Church. Another layer (in addition to the several that occur as a result of mistranslations, mistranscriptions, and revisionisms of the Bible and the still-present clergy in every sect of Christianity) between God and Man is another layer that is open to corruption and inaccuracy. In conclusion, I'll say that all sects of Christianity are equally wrong.
The truth was already gone by the council in 413, <b><i>Virtually </i></b>Everyone since then has been based off of wrong ideas <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Very well clam, I shall back up my claim as well. Not that I don't trust wikipedia, but I can't expect them to know all of the teachings of catholism. :-)
I do not mean for this to be correct, as it is just how THEY teach when you are a catholic. Thusly why I said, what I did.
I do agree that all sects of christianity are wrong though. :-) <3 Clam
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm' target='_blank'>RCC History Views.</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus selected Peter to be the temporal ruler of the church. Peter traveled to Rome, presumably with his wife, and reigned there as the first Pope. Una Fides, a Roman Catholic apologetics web site, claims that: "History proves that from that time [of the disciple Peter] on, both in the East and the West, the successor of Peter was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the [entire Christian] Church." 1. Peter, Paul and the other apostles ordained bishops as their successors; those bishops, in turn, ordained their successors. Thus, the church's current bishops can trace their ordination through an unbroken line from the apostles; this is called the "apostolic succession." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nice post theclam <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway, I see myself in the top most (dotted green) line. I can't express my faith through the line of the RCC - or even through the line of Luthor or Calvin (though they both had good input).
<!--QuoteBegin-Lawpark+Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lawpark @ Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Something interesting to ponder is why there are different languages (if you do not believe the Bible.) There is no logical reason why so many different and diverse languages should have been formed on a planet as small as ours, expecially since we all have a common origin. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow. Even in a planet so small as ours, Aboriginal tribes around the world have been isolated from other humans for centuries; they've got languages that are extremely different than our own. If you look at how different English was around the time of Chaucer, less than 700 years ago, or even how different a newspaper article was 150 years ago, you'll see that there has been plenty of time for new languages to evolve.
If you look at the Basque language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language), you'll see that even a group of people that have been adjacent to many other cultures over the millenia, have evolved a language that isn't related to any other known languages.
It's ludicrous to suggest that God is the reason why we have different languages, unless you mean it in the same sense that God created the universe through the Big Bang and God created the human race through evolution.
*resist the urge to post about evolution* *resist the urge to post about evolution* *resist the urge to post about evolution*
Anyway - yeah, if Church Authority was based on it's lineage, then the RCC would be right up there. Fortunatly, I view the Bible as a better base for authortiy.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 16 2005, 04:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 16 2005, 04:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> *resist the urge to post about evolution* *resist the urge to post about evolution* *resist the urge to post about evolution* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There's always that other thread.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Regardless of the point being debated, I think it only fair to highlight the fact that David Icke was a TV sports presenter, who famously started spouting off about religion and god overnight and was generally considered a total nutbar by the people of the UK.
<!--QuoteBegin-Lawpark+Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lawpark @ Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that the "churches" after the 400s had completely lost the Truth delivered in the Bible, and now, you will very rarely find anyone who can answer straightforward questions about the Bible, because of all the paganism which has been added. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just say the bible was never true to begin with? I'm talking about the whole divine thing, I'm sure it has some useful historical information (and some not so useful).
I'm sorry Nadagast, but I do not believe the bible for anything more then a very basic outline of history and some really good fables.
Every single one of those stories inside of it, can and has been traced back to an older religion and/or lengend.
Which is why I am asking a larger dioscece to look into the matter and hopefully get back to me. I do hope they give me some intelligent answers instead of the cop-outs I have recieved previously.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unless I have been reading a strictly catholic bible, I am fairly sure that it states Peter was appointed as the first pope.
I don't think that is changed in any version of the bible, from what I have read at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The Bible never says anything about Peter being the first of anything (least of all Pope). This <a href='http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy.php' target='_blank'>Link</a> (posted agian for your convenience) says what the Bible does say, and how the RCC has twisted it to mean that Peter was the first pope.
Granted, my Bible only contains the 66 books formally cannonized (the RCC contains quite a few more). The process of cannonization is described <a href='http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=685' target='_blank'>here</a>. It is possible that Peter was called pope in one of the apocraphal books (I don't know their contents as well as I should) - and if that is the case, protestants deny their inspired nature and do not see them as binding what-so-ever.
I'm not really sure why excessive focus is put on the Bible in the first place, other than for obvious historical and political reasons. The Bible was put together almost 400 years after the time of Christ so as to create an orthodoxy. In time, the RCC added more stuff to their orthodoxy, but they did so in ways that really weren't so different from how the original Bible was composed. So I don't really see the legitimate grounds for criticism. Jews might just as easily be as bitter about Chrsitians tacking on their own spin and texts to the Jewish Scripture as some Christians are about Catholic additions. What makes them any less legitimate than the Bible itself?
read the process of cannonization (above post) - that is what establishes legitmacy. It isn't a matter of haphazardly picking books for the bible - it is a matter of considering a huge bunch of books and then holding them up to a standard. All the RCC books were held up to that standard - and while they are interesting and useful for historical purposes, they do not bear the same weight or have the inspired nature of the other 66 books.
<!--QuoteBegin-WoTLanfear+Feb 16 2005, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WoTLanfear @ Feb 16 2005, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem being Pepe is the fact that you would have to believe in the whole "Great Flood." While there is almost no evidence to back that up, historically speaking of course. I have tried using the uber google searching but other then many christian biased sites, there are no historical refrences to a decent timeline including the supposed "Great Flood." Without using that, and none of the OT timeline sites suggest a time for that either.
I propose leaving out the "Great flood" simply because no one can pinpoint a decent time frame for this to have occured, disreguarding the lack of physical evidence left behind as well.
If you agree, I still claim that all the religions of the world, even the horribly name Scientology are based off of this one egyptian legend. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually there is great eveidence showing that the Tigris and Euphrates and the Medditerranian basin flooded. This has been "accurately" dated back to 2900 BC.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually there is great eveidence showing that the Tigris and Euphrates and the Medditerranian basin flooded. This has been "accurately" dated back to 2900 BC. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Minor flooding of a basin in the mediterrian sea does not consitute as the entire earth flooding.
In addition, in 2900 BC, the egyptians and hindus already had legends about a great flood, dating back around 4700 BC. Thus, that has nothing to do with anything other then basic geological studies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think that the "churches" after the 400s had completely lost the Truth delivered in the Bible, and now, you will very rarely find anyone who can answer straightforward questions about the Bible, because of all the paganism which has been added.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So, wouldn't that mean that there was a time during history where no one at all followed the "one, true religion"? I hear Christians say all the time that God wouldn't allow the Bible to be distorted or allow a world without true Christians, but it apparently happened.
How do you know that we aren't in such a time period?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Minor flooding of a basin in the mediterrian sea does not consitute as the entire earth flooding. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends highly upon what you consider "ther entire word" and how "minor" the flooding actually was. I have read several therories about the flood legend origin. All in all you can safely take that there has been a major flooding desaster at some point in hiostory. Probably even a global one, as many if not all greater cultures do have similar descriptions. Not that I am believing in Noahs Ark. Not literally at least.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Mar 17 2005, 01:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Mar 17 2005, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Minor flooding of a basin in the mediterrian sea does not consitute as the entire earth flooding. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends highly upon what you consider "ther entire word" and how "minor" the flooding actually was. I have read several therories about the flood legend origin. All in all you can safely take that there has been a major flooding desaster at some point in hiostory. Probably even a global one, as many if not all greater cultures do have similar descriptions. Not that I am believing in Noahs Ark. Not literally at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollmann%27s_hypothetical_bolide' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollmann%27s_...thetical_bolide</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alexander Tollmann's bolide is a hypothesis presented by Austrian professor of geology Dr. Alexander Tollmann, suggesting that one or several bolides (asteroids or comets) struck the Earth at 7640 BCE (+/-200), with a much smaller one at 3150 BCE (+/-200). If true, this hypothesis explains early holocene extinctions and possibly legends of the Universal Deluge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, greater than normal flooding of these rivers in the distant past might have influenced the myths. One of the latest, and quite controversial, theories of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. Many other prehistoric geologic events, including tsunamis, have also been advanced as possible foundations for these myths. For example, some have asserted that the original versions of the Greek myth of Deukalion's flood likely originated from the effects of the megatsunami created by the eruption of Thera in the 18th-15th BC [5] (http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/thera.html) More speculatively, some have suggested that flood myths could have arisen from folk stories of the huge rise in sea levels that accompanied the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago, passed down the generations as an oral history.
Most biblical archeologists consider the story of Noah's flood to be legend or myth. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews accept the deluge story as an allegory intended to convey meaning, not historical fact. On the other hand, most traditional orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as many Christians, regard it as historical fact. They claim that the large number of flood myths between many cultures suggests that they originated from a common, historical event. They claim further that the text of the Genesis account is unique among the flood myths, due to what they perceive to be a high degree of detail, including specific dates for the events of the flood, specific dimensions and design of the boat, detailed genealogies before and after, and an objective and historical textual style. Flood geology, a subset of Creationism, contends that the myths from various cultures are corrupted memories of an historical global deluge, which it argues is depicted most accurately in the book of Genesis.
Most scholars of mythology believe that the Genesis myth is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths. They strongly dispute the idea that the Gensis myth has features that would date it to a more earlier version, and argue that the various claimed points of uniqueness in the Biblical tale are actually quite common in the other versions of the myths as well. Instead of trying to find cataclysmatic real life floods to explain these stories, these experts point out that <b>early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins such as the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia (in present day Iraq). It is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods as it was an integral part of their lives. To these ancient groups, a flood that covered the world as they knew it could simply be what is considered minor local flooding these days instead of literally the entire planet. The scholars point out that cultures that most cultures that lived in areas where flooding is less likely to occur did not have any flood myths of their own. These facts, added to the natural human tendency to make stories more dramatic than they originally started as, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying cataclysmatic floods evolved.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I seriously doubt that there is any evidence for a global flood. Even a large meteor striking the earth (it would still have to be small enough so that it wouldn't lead to a catastrophe ending early human civilizations) wouldn't bring the seas inland very far, especially to areas like Tibet, the American Rockies, or basically any other highland region. It may not even penetrate more than a few dozen kilometers in. Large regional flood are a much more likely possibility, if there was even a basis in fact for the flood myths at all.
I also doubt an event of global flooding. All I say is that remarkably many similar (both about the reports as well as the timing) do indicate such an desastrous event. yet, it does not take a global killer to establish such legends. People in the Tsunami regions will tell their children about the day when the water came for centuries to come for example.
There was an interesting program on NPR today about religion in teenagers: <a href='http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539484' target='_blank'>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539484</a> - Click on Listen (30min, requires Realplayer or Windows Media Player)
They had a guy on who was talking about a survey he did that said that religious teens are happier, less likely to use drugs, etc. but they don't have much understanding about their faith. Ignorance is Bliss, I guess.
He said that the majority of teens follow something called moralistic, theraputic deism. The teens believe that there is a god of some sort, who wants you to do good, nice things and to be happy. If you have a problem, then you can get god to resolve it. He said that god is a combination of a "divine butler" and "cosmic therapist" to these teens.
Anyway, it's a very interesting piece.
Edit: Also, this reminded me of a quote that I stumbled on yesterday.
<i>Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.</i> Stop hoping you will change the will of the gods by praying. -Virgil, the Aeneid, Book Six, Line 376
That's actually a scarily close description about how I feel about religion most of the time. Scary because I don't like being pigeon-holed by psychologists and/or talk show hosts. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
That radio show pretty much sums up about 95% (of whom I've met, excluding those of the forumites here) of the people who believe in god. In a big way because the vast majority of them think they know about their religion yet is a only the rehtorical teachings that they learn and know.
Comments
Not to nitpick, but they don't. Here's how it worked:
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
Christianity
/ \
Catholics Eastern Orthodox
/ |
Protestants Modern Day Catholics
<!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
There are 3 branches of Christianity alive today.
Many of the founding fathers of the "protestant" movement came from the RCC - durring the reformation. It was called the reformation because they beleived that is what they were doing - reforming christianity back to what it was. Soli Scriptori was a common battle cry (Only Scripture). It was a battle of authority - the Bible v. Tradition
So where do I put the RCC in the whole gammet of things? - I think their authority comes from tradition a whole lot more than it does from the Bible. If you are looking for a solid defence of the Bible, the RCC is not your best bet.
umm, no.
They claim lineage through Peter based on some sketchy interpretation of Scripture. It is more of an authority thing than anything else - Jesus, Peter, Papal legacy - and it wraps up a whole bunch of other doctrine (infalability of the pope, keys of the kingdom) - neither of which have any Biblical base.
The claim to Peter is a means to control people. I bet Peter rolls over in his grave every time an RCC tries to make / use that claim (Peter is dizzy now <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<a href='http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy.php' target='_blank'>Linky</a>
Of course this is my experience, and unless you have been to a catholic school, not out of the question, I will base it on that.
Something interesting to ponder is why there are different languages (if you do not believe the Bible.) There is no logical reason why so many different and diverse languages should have been formed on a planet as small as ours, expecially since we all have a common origin.
Except the diverity in language follows the Divine purpose, which is to keep the nations seperated and if you think about how many different ways it does that, you might be amazed how it literally prevents a human "utopia" because of people's language! it stems nationalism and pride, we will <b>not </b>all be brothers and sisters with nationalism and pride. (I love "CommunistWithAGun" so I added this paragraph)
Assuming you want to understand the Bible, you must look at the Divine purpose perscribed in it. That purpose is to have the divine character. "God manifestation not human salvation" is the Divine purpose. It is the only thing that makes sense to answer the critics who propose that an all-powerful being could prevent all the human problems, but the Divine purpose isn't to prevent hunger, illness, pain, suffering, and death; those are allowed for our learning.
We learn obediance through suffering, just as Jesus Christ did.
Also, the clergymen will never sufficently answer your questions Cyndane, they are drunk with the wine (doctrine) of the great whor*, mentioned in Revelation.
EDIT: added this paragraph:
I think that the "churches" after the 400s had completely lost the Truth delivered in the Bible, and now, you will very rarely find anyone who can answer straightforward questions about the Bible, because of all the paganism which has been added.
<img src='http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Christian-lineage.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the Western world, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and had made some small inroads into the Far East as well. For the most part it had remained fairly unified in its fundamental beliefs with major theological disagreements being resolved in council. But as the millennium approached, certain major differences in theology and practice became increasingly troublesome. <b>The Great Schism of 1054 split the Church into Western and Eastern churches: the Western church gradually consolidated into the Roman Catholic Church under the central authority of Rome (see Catholicism), while the Eastern church adopted the name "Orthodox" to emphasize their commitment to preserving the traditions of the church and resistance to change.</b> This Eastern Church refused to be consolidated under a single bishop, as this was completely alien to the structure the church had hitherto enjoyed. The Eastern Church recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as the "First among equals" of the numerous bishops in charge of its autocephalous churches (see Eastern Orthodoxy).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I guess it depends on how you define Catholicism.
Also, I've always thought that Catholic traditions were created as a tool in order to help people understand the Bible and live according to Jesus' wishes. Martin Luther didn't post his theses in order to go against Catholicism, but just against the corruption that had occured within the Church. Another layer (in addition to the several that occur as a result of mistranslations, mistranscriptions, and revisionisms of the Bible and the still-present clergy in every sect of Christianity) between God and Man is another layer that is open to corruption and inaccuracy. In conclusion, I'll say that all sects of Christianity are equally wrong.
I do not mean for this to be correct, as it is just how THEY teach when you are a catholic. Thusly why I said, what I did.
I do agree that all sects of christianity are wrong though. :-)
<3 Clam
<a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm' target='_blank'>RCC History Views.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus selected Peter to be the temporal ruler of the church. Peter traveled to Rome, presumably with his wife, and reigned there as the first Pope. Una Fides, a Roman Catholic apologetics web site, claims that: "History proves that from that time [of the disciple Peter] on, both in the East and the West, the successor of Peter was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the [entire Christian] Church." 1. Peter, Paul and the other apostles ordained bishops as their successors; those bishops, in turn, ordained their successors. Thus, the church's current bishops can trace their ordination through an unbroken line from the apostles; this is called the "apostolic succession." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway, I see myself in the top most (dotted green) line. I can't express my faith through the line of the RCC - or even through the line of Luthor or Calvin (though they both had good input).
Wow. Even in a planet so small as ours, Aboriginal tribes around the world have been isolated from other humans for centuries; they've got languages that are extremely different than our own. If you look at how different English was around the time of Chaucer, less than 700 years ago, or even how different a newspaper article was 150 years ago, you'll see that there has been plenty of time for new languages to evolve.
If you look at the Basque language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_language), you'll see that even a group of people that have been adjacent to many other cultures over the millenia, have evolved a language that isn't related to any other known languages.
It's ludicrous to suggest that God is the reason why we have different languages, unless you mean it in the same sense that God created the universe through the Big Bang and God created the human race through evolution.
*resist the urge to post about evolution*
*resist the urge to post about evolution*
*resist the urge to post about evolution*
Anyway - yeah, if Church Authority was based on it's lineage, then the RCC would be right up there. Fortunatly, I view the Bible as a better base for authortiy.
*resist the urge to post about evolution*
*resist the urge to post about evolution* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's always that other thread.
I don't think that is changed in any version of the bible, from what I have read at least.
Now now, don't scare him. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to just say the bible was never true to begin with? I'm talking about the whole divine thing, I'm sure it has some useful historical information (and some not so useful).
Every single one of those stories inside of it, can and has been traced back to an older religion and/or lengend.
Which is why I am asking a larger dioscece to look into the matter and hopefully get back to me. I do hope they give me some intelligent answers instead of the cop-outs I have recieved previously.
I don't think that is changed in any version of the bible, from what I have read at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Bible never says anything about Peter being the first of anything (least of all Pope). This <a href='http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy.php' target='_blank'>Link</a> (posted agian for your convenience) says what the Bible does say, and how the RCC has twisted it to mean that Peter was the first pope.
Granted, my Bible only contains the 66 books formally cannonized (the RCC contains quite a few more). The process of cannonization is described <a href='http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=685' target='_blank'>here</a>. It is possible that Peter was called pope in one of the apocraphal books (I don't know their contents as well as I should) - and if that is the case, protestants deny their inspired nature and do not see them as binding what-so-ever.
While there is almost no evidence to back that up, historically speaking of course.
I have tried using the uber google searching but other then many christian biased sites, there are no historical refrences to a decent timeline including the supposed "Great Flood." Without using that, and none of the OT timeline sites suggest a time for that either.
I propose leaving out the "Great flood" simply because no one can pinpoint a decent time frame for this to have occured, disreguarding the lack of physical evidence left behind as well.
If you agree, I still claim that all the religions of the world, even the horribly name Scientology are based off of this one egyptian legend. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually there is great eveidence showing that the Tigris and Euphrates and the Medditerranian basin flooded. This has been "accurately" dated back to 2900 BC.
Minor flooding of a basin in the mediterrian sea does not consitute as the entire earth flooding.
In addition, in 2900 BC, the egyptians and hindus already had legends about a great flood, dating back around 4700 BC. Thus, that has nothing to do with anything other then basic geological studies.
So, wouldn't that mean that there was a time during history where no one at all followed the "one, true religion"? I hear Christians say all the time that God wouldn't allow the Bible to be distorted or allow a world without true Christians, but it apparently happened.
How do you know that we aren't in such a time period?
That depends highly upon what you consider "ther entire word" and how "minor" the flooding actually was. I have read several therories about the flood legend origin. All in all you can safely take that there has been a major flooding desaster at some point in hiostory. Probably even a global one, as many if not all greater cultures do have similar descriptions. Not that I am believing in Noahs Ark. Not literally at least.
That depends highly upon what you consider "ther entire word" and how "minor" the flooding actually was. I have read several therories about the flood legend origin. All in all you can safely take that there has been a major flooding desaster at some point in hiostory. Probably even a global one, as many if not all greater cultures do have similar descriptions. Not that I am believing in Noahs Ark. Not literally at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollmann%27s_hypothetical_bolide' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollmann%27s_...thetical_bolide</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alexander Tollmann's bolide is a hypothesis presented by Austrian professor of geology Dr. Alexander Tollmann, suggesting that one or several bolides (asteroids or comets) struck the Earth at 7640 BCE (+/-200), with a much smaller one at 3150 BCE (+/-200). If true, this hypothesis explains early holocene extinctions and possibly legends of the Universal Deluge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, greater than normal flooding of these rivers in the distant past might have influenced the myths. One of the latest, and quite controversial, theories of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. Many other prehistoric geologic events, including tsunamis, have also been advanced as possible foundations for these myths. For example, some have asserted that the original versions of the Greek myth of Deukalion's flood likely originated from the effects of the megatsunami created by the eruption of Thera in the 18th-15th BC [5] (http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/thera.html) More speculatively, some have suggested that flood myths could have arisen from folk stories of the huge rise in sea levels that accompanied the end of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago, passed down the generations as an oral history.
Most biblical archeologists consider the story of Noah's flood to be legend or myth. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews accept the deluge story as an allegory intended to convey meaning, not historical fact. On the other hand, most traditional orthodox Jews and Muslims, as well as many Christians, regard it as historical fact. They claim that the large number of flood myths between many cultures suggests that they originated from a common, historical event. They claim further that the text of the Genesis account is unique among the flood myths, due to what they perceive to be a high degree of detail, including specific dates for the events of the flood, specific dimensions and design of the boat, detailed genealogies before and after, and an objective and historical textual style. Flood geology, a subset of Creationism, contends that the myths from various cultures are corrupted memories of an historical global deluge, which it argues is depicted most accurately in the book of Genesis.
Most scholars of mythology believe that the Genesis myth is actually a later version of the story, which was based upon earlier Mesopotamian myths. They strongly dispute the idea that the Gensis myth has features that would date it to a more earlier version, and argue that the various claimed points of uniqueness in the Biblical tale are actually quite common in the other versions of the myths as well. Instead of trying to find cataclysmatic real life floods to explain these stories, these experts point out that <b>early civilized cultures lived in the fertile flood plains along river basins such as the Nile in Egypt and the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia (in present day Iraq). It is not unusual that such peoples would have deep memories of floods and have developed mythologies surrounding floods as it was an integral part of their lives. To these ancient groups, a flood that covered the world as they knew it could simply be what is considered minor local flooding these days instead of literally the entire planet. The scholars point out that cultures that most cultures that lived in areas where flooding is less likely to occur did not have any flood myths of their own. These facts, added to the natural human tendency to make stories more dramatic than they originally started as, are all the points most mythology scholars feel is necessary to explain how myths of world-destroying cataclysmatic floods evolved.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I seriously doubt that there is any evidence for a global flood. Even a large meteor striking the earth (it would still have to be small enough so that it wouldn't lead to a catastrophe ending early human civilizations) wouldn't bring the seas inland very far, especially to areas like Tibet, the American Rockies, or basically any other highland region. It may not even penetrate more than a few dozen kilometers in. Large regional flood are a much more likely possibility, if there was even a basis in fact for the flood myths at all.
All I say is that remarkably many similar (both about the reports as well as the timing) do indicate such an desastrous event. yet, it does not take a global killer to establish such legends. People in the Tsunami regions will tell their children about the day when the water came for centuries to come for example.
<a href='http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539484' target='_blank'>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4539484</a> - Click on Listen (30min, requires Realplayer or Windows Media Player)
They had a guy on who was talking about a survey he did that said that religious teens are happier, less likely to use drugs, etc. but they don't have much understanding about their faith. Ignorance is Bliss, I guess.
He said that the majority of teens follow something called moralistic, theraputic deism.
The teens believe that there is a god of some sort, who wants you to do good, nice things and to be happy. If you have a problem, then you can get god to resolve it. He said that god is a combination of a "divine butler" and "cosmic therapist" to these teens.
Anyway, it's a very interesting piece.
Edit:
Also, this reminded me of a quote that I stumbled on yesterday.
<i>Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.</i>
Stop hoping you will change the will of the gods by praying.
-Virgil, the Aeneid, Book Six, Line 376