Question for the Religious Types

[CrazyAnglican]

I beleive SOME of it -

1. Yep
2. No
3. Yes.......
4. No
5. He did. He got angry and through a bunch of people out of church.

I think you meant synagogue for #5. The church didn't start until Pentecost.

Anyway, anger against sin is not a sin in and of itself. But since you don't believe that Jesus was acutally God then I can see why you would think he did something wrong.

Thanks for the correction.
But I thought Jesus was meant to be angry at the SIN, not the people.
He was pretty mad at the people.

We tend to think of Christians as pacifists too much sometimes. In the scripture you pointed too, all Jesus did was yell at some people and turn a few tables over. He didn't abuse (curse or belittle) anyone; He didn't punch or stab anyone. He just experienced anger, and used it to make a point. He didn't even categorize anyone as evil*. He saw something that was wrong and made sure everyone knew that it was wrong. He couldn't even be accused of misconduct in the Temple, for this happened in the Temple courtyard.

The concept of sin is sometimes misused to include speaking up when you see something that is wrong. In fact, the sin may be seeing something that's wrong and not speaking up. (ie. abusive relationships, embezzlement, child abandonment). If I knew anyone who was doing these things, you bet I'd speak up, and I wouldn't be guilty of a sin as long as I avoided becoming abusive myself. I may even turn a desk over if I thought it would get the attention of the right people to help correct the situation.

*He says at times that it is a wicked generation, but that's little different than saying "That's just the way people are nowadays". He comments on the state of society without hurling abuse on any individual.

[daddy1gringo]

Except you are rejecting paradise by rejecting Christ's redemptive work.

What exactly did Christ do that MLK, Ghandi and others did not? How is he in his mortal life any greater?

If we start with the premise that he was merely human, it is impossible to make a comparison anyway because, as we have debated in the "Christianity" thread, pretty much the only sources about what he did in his life would be unreliable, since they claimed he was more than human: did miracles, rose from the dead, etc.

We don't believe forgiveness/redemption is through Jesus because he was a human being who lived a good life. We believe that he was God himself having inhabited a human body so that he could suffer the penalty of sin so we wouldn't have to. He willingly chose to become human, and persue the path that led to his crucufiction for this purpose.

It was the one way that God could have us re-united with himself, both forever and even now in spirit, and still be true to his nature as a righteous judge who doesn't wink at sin. The horrible death Jesus suffered gives a pale picture of his intense, violent, passionate hatred for sin, and of his equally intense, violent, passionate love for you.

So what's Ghandi got to do with that again?

[waradmiral]

god is watching. so put on a good show.

[luns101]

If I knew anyone who was doing these things, you bet I'd speak up, and I wouldn't be guilty of a sin as long as I avoided becoming abusive myself. I may even turn a desk over if I thought it would get the attention of the right people to help correct the situation.

Hey look! I'm sorry about making that joke against Georgians, OK? Take it easy...I'm sorry!

[OnlyAmbrose]

Sorry it took so long to get to this-

If i was a member of a church that sheltered child molesters, and moved them from parish to parish to keep them one step ahead of the law, I would want an explanation from those in charge. Wouldn't you? I live in Louisiana, and have seen Catholicism at its best - why would anyone want to be a part of such a corrupt organization? Read your history books - we are talking about a grotesque caricature of religion here. I could care less about the pretty rituals and cathedrals, tell us about the inquisitions, the crusades, the persecution of Jews long before Hitler got to them, etc. We are talking major evil here. Someone once said "by their fruits ye shall know them". Can you guess who that was?

Right, first in regards the the priest scandal you alluded to. While the actions of those who committed the crime are inexcusable, the actual proportion of child/adolescent molesters within the priesthood is lower than that of the general populace.

Certainly, however, that does not detract from the fact that some bishops and higher-ups in the Church sheltered those who did commit the crimes. That is inexcusable as well, though some have proposed explanations:

The truth be told, these cases remained ACCUSATIONS until someone brought them to court. Upon allegation alone (with no legal proof whatsoever) the church would "shuffle" priests... which was basically a way of saying to remove them from public ministry and eliminate their contact with adolescents while sometimes forcing them into counseling and treatment... all without the benefit of a trial to determine if the priest were guilty or not.

Anyways, ultimately what it boils down to is that any church here on earth is run by falliable people. Everyone sins, and "everyone" certainly includes Catholic priests, bishops, and of course the pope.

Next, the inquisition. Most people here refer to the Spanish Inquisition. Turns out, Rome had very little to do with the commencement of said inquisition- the roots of it actually begin with the government of Spain. The Church itself actually put a stop to it, if I remember right.

Where we get to an important point, however, is your comment about "judging by fruits".

Looks to me like you're judging SOLELY by the bad fruits- most of which are deep in the past. If we were to judge only by bad things any church, government, or organization has done, there would be no such thing as a "good" organization. Needless to say the Church has plenty of good fruits. Read the lives of the saints. Look at people like Mother Teresa. I could go on and on.

[misterman10]

This whole thread is making my brain hurt

[Blastshot]

This whole thread is making my brain hurt

I thought i was the only one. Where the hells the asprin?

[b.k. barunt]

Sorry it took so long to get to this-

If i was a member of a church that sheltered child molesters, and moved them from parish to parish to keep them one step ahead of the law, I would want an explanation from those in charge. Wouldn't you? I live in Louisiana, and have seen Catholicism at its best - why would anyone want to be a part of such a corrupt organization? Read your history books - we are talking about a grotesque caricature of religion here. I could care less about the pretty rituals and cathedrals, tell us about the inquisitions, the crusades, the persecution of Jews long before Hitler got to them, etc. We are talking major evil here. Someone once said "by their fruits ye shall know them". Can you guess who that was?

Right, first in regards the the priest scandal you alluded to. While the actions of those who committed the crime are inexcusable, the actual proportion of child/adolescent molesters within the priesthood is lower than that of the general populace.

Certainly, however, that does not detract from the fact that some bishops and higher-ups in the Church sheltered those who did commit the crimes. That is inexcusable as well, though some have proposed explanations:

The truth be told, these cases remained ACCUSATIONS until someone brought them to court. Upon allegation alone (with no legal proof whatsoever) the church would "shuffle" priests... which was basically a way of saying to remove them from public ministry and eliminate their contact with adolescents while sometimes forcing them into counseling and treatment... all without the benefit of a trial to determine if the priest were guilty or not.

Anyways, ultimately what it boils down to is that any church here on earth is run by falliable people. Everyone sins, and "everyone" certainly includes Catholic priests, bishops, and of course the pope.

Next, the inquisition. Most people here refer to the Spanish Inquisition. Turns out, Rome had very little to do with the commencement of said inquisition- the roots of it actually begin with the government of Spain. The Church itself actually put a stop to it, if I remember right.

Where we get to an important point, however, is your comment about "judging by fruits".

Looks to me like you're judging SOLELY by the bad fruits- most of which are deep in the past. If we were to judge only by bad things any church, government, or organization has done, there would be no such thing as a "good" organization. Needless to say the Church has plenty of good fruits. Read the lives of the saints. Look at people like Mother Teresa. I could go on and on.

Very clever, to cite the fact that these cases did not go to court, when in fact it was the church that exerted tremendous pressure and/or bribes to keep them out of court.
The inquisitions (all of them) were initiated by pope Innocent III, and not the separate governments of France, Spain, Portugal, etc. Will Durant said that "pope Innocent III killed more Christians in one year than all 10 of the Roman emperors who persecuted the church in their lifetimes". Then we have the Crusades - some of which were against other Christians, i.e. the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Cathars, etc. You can blow these historical facts off as "being in the distant past", but doesn't the church draw its validity and claims thereto from the distant past? Speaking of which, the Donation of Constantine, which kicked off the papacy, was proven to be a hoax - this also is proven historical fact. If you want to follow God, you have the Bible. Why ally yourself with a church that has proven itself time and time again to be evil? When He said "by their fruits ye shall know them", He went on to say how a good tree does not bear evil fruit. You sound like John Wayne Gacy (remember the killer clown?), who told a forensic psychiatrist "i've done a lot of bad things , but i've done a lot of good things too .

[OnlyAmbrose]

Why ally yourself with a church that has proven itself time and time again to be evil?

Yet that same Church has proven itself time and time again to be good. Once again, how can you judge any organization by looking soley at the bad things its done?

And as a historical note, in regards to the inquisition:

The Spanish Inquisition was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions. The reconquest of Spain from the Moors resulted in a relatively peaceful multi-religious society, but violent anti-Judaism and anti-islam ensued and many Jews and Muslims converted to the Catholic faith. Some of these conversos were suspected of not being sincere converts. The Alhambra Decree in 1492 ordered all remaining Jews to leave their kingdoms, causing more Jews to convert to Christianity rather than leave Spain. Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs to start the Inquisition, such as increased political authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos and sheer profit.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to let him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus IV later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull. On both occasions Sixtus IV went along with Ferdinand II of Aragon.[1]

Pope Sixtus wasn't evil, he was just ridiculously weak as a leader. And, incidentally, the Inquisition was under the control of the nation in which it took place, not the Church.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You can blow these historical facts off as "being in the distant past", but doesn't the church draw its validity and claims thereto from the distant past?

It draws spiritual authority from a line of apostolic succession which, in reference to your remark regarding "kicking off the papacy", leads back to the bishop of Rome - an office which existed well before the title of "Pope".

[OnlyAmbrose]

Triple post. Sue me.

ANyways, in reference to your bible verse...

Mt 7:15-20 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Firstly, he's talking about being aware of false prophets. I'm not aware of any Catholics who have claimed to be prophets.

Secondly, if a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, then how can the Catholic Church be a bad tree? Certainly those under the care of Mother Teresa and various other religious orders would say that the Church is bearing good fruit.

I think it's safe to assume that Jesus was not referring to selection of churches and/or nations when he was pseaking of good and bad trees. Its far too black and white.

[b.k. barunt]

There is no historical proof that Peter was ever bishop of Rome. He was an elder in the Jewish church in Jerusalem. Paul was the main apostle who was sent to the Gentiles. This is well chronicled in the Bible, where there was a rift between the Jewish and Gentile church. The end of this argument, also written in the epistles, is that Peter's ministry was to the Jews, and Paul would go to the Gentiles. How then, in Catholic lore (not documented history) does Peter come to do a complete turnaround, and become head of the Gentile church in Rome? The church of the New Testament was not governed by a "pope". Peter was one of the elders in Jerusalem - there is no mention of a single or "head" elder. The papacy itself did not come into effect until 1,000 years after the death of Christ, and split the eastern and western churches. If the apostles knew of it, why didn't they institute it?

Btw, we were talking about 2 separate Spanish inquisitions - mine was obviously under a different pope than the one you're mentioning. Had a few of them didn't you. So Sixtus was not a "bad" pope, just a weak one. I wish you would talk to my parole officer.

[AlgyTaylor]

So, you're trying to suggest that god Created man, makes him suffer, and judges him his reaction to this devine torment . . .because he was lonely

God is indeed a bastard.

No, he created us to live in the garden of eden.

Where we'd be happy, then our dumb*ss ancestors f*cked it up...

But the bible says that God knows everything that is, has been and is going to be ... so he must've known that Adam was going to take the apple.

So again, it comes back to God being a complete arsehole.

OK, its not that God couldnt, he just might have chose not to. To let us be FREE to DO AS WE CHOSE. Instead of God changing everything all the time. God gave us freedom, and we chose not to take.

If he knows everything that is going to be, then he must've known what choice Adam was going to make ... so how can he justify punishing him (and Eve) for taking an action that he knew they were going to take when he created them? Surely it's his doing that they made that choice, because he already knew which path they were going to take.

[AlgyTaylor]

God created Satan good, but Satan chose to become evil. Thus the term "Fallen angel"

OK, so God created Satan ... but since he knows everything that is going to be, he must've known that Satan would choose evil! Back to the same point; a huge contradiction. Assuming the bible is true in what it says, god can't both be benevolent and all-knowing. Either he knows what is going to happen or he doesn't. Or in other words, either:
God isn't benevolent (ie he IS all-knowing)
or
God isn't all-knowing (ie there is choice; he can't tell the future)




EDIT: typo

[Bertros Bertros]

I wonder how the actions of the Catholic church in our time will be viewed in 200 years?

For example the refusal of the Papacy to allow the use of condoms as a prevention of aids is one thing, but deliberately lying to a congregation of millions, telling them condoms can never prevent HIV infection due to invisible holes in the rubber, is effectively not only sanctioning but taking a direct hand in the deaths of millions of people - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0, ... 68,00.html

Is this evil? More or less evil than contraception? Which I assume was originally outlawed by the Catholic church to ensure steady growth of their followers rather than through any real concern over its sinful status.

[Skittles!]

I wonder how the actions of the Catholic church in our time will be viewed in 200 years?

For example the refusal of the Papacy to allow the use of condoms as a prevention of aids is one thing, but deliberately lying to a congregation of millions, telling them condoms can never prevent HIV infection due to invisible holes in the rubber, is effectively not only sanctioning but taking a direct hand in the deaths of millions of people - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0, ... 68,00.html

Is this evil? More or less evil than contraception? Which I assume was originally outlawed by the Catholic church to ensure steady growth of their followers rather than through any real concern over its sinful status.

That's pretty selfish. "Hey, we don't care about your health, just follow our Church because the mortal life is not important. DIE FOR GOD"

[MR. Nate]

OK, so God created Satan ... but since he knows everything that is going to be, he must've known that Satan would choose evil! Back to the same point; a huge contradiction. Assuming the bible is true in what it says, god can't both be benevolent and all-knowing. Either he knows what is going to happen or he doesn't. Or in other words, either:
God isn't benevolent (ie he IS all-knowing)
or
God isn't all-knowing (ie there is choice; he can't tell the future)

OR, God is both, and allows us to make the decisions we want to for the sake of those who will chose Him. Why do you keep trying to blame God for the choices other free beings make, simply because He didn't squash their free will?

[comic boy]

Why ally yourself with a church that has proven itself time and time again to be evil?

Yet that same Church has proven itself time and time again to be good. Once again, how can you judge any organization by looking soley at the bad things its done?

And as a historical note, in regards to the inquisition:

The Spanish Inquisition was an institution that had precedents in other Inquisitions. The reconquest of Spain from the Moors resulted in a relatively peaceful multi-religious society, but violent anti-Judaism and anti-islam ensued and many Jews and Muslims converted to the Catholic faith. Some of these conversos were suspected of not being sincere converts. The Alhambra Decree in 1492 ordered all remaining Jews to leave their kingdoms, causing more Jews to convert to Christianity rather than leave Spain. Various motives have been proposed for the monarchs to start the Inquisition, such as increased political authority, weakening opposition, doing away with conversos and sheer profit.

Ferdinand II of Aragon pressured pope Sixtus IV to agree to let him set up an Inquisition controlled by the monarchy by threatening to withdraw military support at a time when the Turks were a threat to Rome. Sixtus IV later accused the Spanish inquisition of being overzealous, accused the monarchs for being greedy and issued a bull to stop it, but he was pressured into withdrawing the bull. On both occasions Sixtus IV went along with Ferdinand II of Aragon.[1]

Pope Sixtus wasn't evil, he was just ridiculously weak as a leader. And, incidentally, the Inquisition was under the control of the nation in which it took place, not the Church.

Trust me you are starting to make yourself look foolish,I would never attack your personal faith but the Catholic church has a history of corruption,greed and violence that should shame you. Your attempts to defend it are laughable,anybody with only a rudimentary grasp of history knows that the Catholic church was the supreme power in Europe,the various kings were puppets who dare not defy it. The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

[comic boy]

I wonder how the actions of the Catholic church in our time will be viewed in 200 years?

For example the refusal of the Papacy to allow the use of condoms as a prevention of aids is one thing, but deliberately lying to a congregation of millions, telling them condoms can never prevent HIV infection due to invisible holes in the rubber, is effectively not only sanctioning but taking a direct hand in the deaths of millions of people - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0, ... 68,00.html

Is this evil? More or less evil than contraception? Which I assume was originally outlawed by the Catholic church to ensure steady growth of their followers rather than through any real concern over its sinful status.

If ever there was a sin then this takes the biscuit !

[MR. Nate]

Your attempts to defend it are laughable,anybody with only a rudimentary grasp of history knows that the Catholic church was the supreme power in Europe,the various kings were puppets who dare not defy it. The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

You seem to have a bit of revisionist history. The reformation had everything to do with Scripture, although some political figures seized on the movement to their advantage. It was aided by political motives, certainly, but the scholars were the ones with the first and longest lasting beef. Henry VIII has nothing if Luther, Wycliffe & Tyndale don't lay the foundations they did.

[AlgyTaylor]

OR, God is both, and allows us to make the decisions we want to for the sake of those who will chose Him. Why do you keep trying to blame God for the choices other free beings make, simply because He didn't squash their free will?

Because the Bible says that he knows everything that will be ... and if he knows everything that will be, he already knows what choices those individuals will make.

The only way he can know everything that will be is if free choice doesn't exist; if choice was indeterminable he couldn't know the future.


So somewhere along the line the Bible includes an error ....

[MR. Nate]

Why can't God know the free future choices of free beings?

You reject that your choice can be "free" if God already knows your decision, but He's not the one making the choice, you are. So you freely make the choice that God knows you're going to make.

Think of this:
There's a poker game, say Daniel Negreanu and Joe Beevers. Daniel has been setting a trap for Joe for the last 5 hands, showing bluffs & playing a particular way. Joe's not a great player, so he thinks he's got a bead on Daniel. Finally, Joe has a hand that can beat a bluff. Daniel starts playing the same way. Joe thinks he's got him and calls, except this time. Daniel has the nuts. Daniel KNEW that Joe was going to bite, because he studied him, but it was Joe's choice. The more Daniel learned about Joe, the easier it was to predict what Joe was going to do.

So if God knows everything about your past and the present, nothing that you choose is going to surprise Him. He knows the future as well, because he can perfectly predict every choice that every person will ever make.

[AlgyTaylor]

Why can't God know the free future choices of free beings?
...

So if God knows everything about your past and the present, nothing that you choose is going to surprise Him. He knows the future as well, because he can perfectly predict every choice that every person will ever make.

(just shortened it to save on page space ...)

OK, take Adam's case. When God created Adam, he must've been able to perfectly predict (ie know) that Adam would bite the apple.

So God punished Adam for biting the apple ... but when he created Adam, he knew that Adam would not be too his liking, because he knew that Adam would take the apple. It follows that if God knew, before he created Adam, that Adam would need to be punished for failing to live up to his expectations. So why make something that you know won't live up to your expectations and then punish that thing for doing exactly that?

[AlgyTaylor]

Why can't God know the free future choices of free beings?

OK, say you have a 6-sided dice and roll it. If you *know* that it's definitely going to land on 3, it's not a random event per se - as you already know the outcome. The dice cannot land on any other number if you know for certain that it will land on 3. So it's not a random event.

[comic boy]

Your attempts to defend it are laughable,anybody with only a rudimentary grasp of history knows that the Catholic church was the supreme power in Europe,the various kings were puppets who dare not defy it. The reformation had very little to do with scripture my friend,it was about freedom of expression and the desire to wrest power away from big brother.

You seem to have a bit of revisionist history. The reformation had everything to do with Scripture, although some political figures seized on the movement to their advantage. It was aided by political motives, certainly, but the scholars were the ones with the first and longest lasting beef. Henry VIII has nothing if Luther, Wycliffe & Tyndale don't lay the foundations they did.

Well Henry died a Catholic so Luther hardly inspired him did he
The point I was making was that it was the power and corruption of the Vatican that people rebelled against rather than differences in fundamental doctrine that very few would even have understood.
Its my view that basic Christian beliefs are a positive benefit to society but organised religion,on balance, has not proved beneficial. If everybody stopped going to church and simply prayed at home would that offend God, does the bible say that you need to congregate,would Jesus have approved of an organisation so wealthy and hugely powerfull as the Catholic church ?