At 1/31/10 05:58 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 1/31/10 04:52 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

TL;DR at the bottom.

Come on, this is stupid. Does Catholics qualify as Christian? What about Lutherans? What about Mormons? What about any other sect of Christianity except your own?

All these are accepted as branches of Christianity. I would like to add that I'm not affiliated with Christianity, or any other religion for that matter.

There have been tons of modifications to Christianity throughout the ages. Why should this particular modification be skipped as not being true Christianity?

This is a huge modification bordering on becoming a separate type of religion all on it's own. All other strands of Christianity have something in common. What the Nazis believed in was very different from say Lutheran, Catholic, and Anglican.

From what I've read, Hitler never messed up the core message of Jesus,

No, but he sure as hell did some things that are totally against life and Christ. If Hitler ever told Jesus that he was a Christian and he saw Hitler's actions, I highly doubt Christ would have given him a thumbs up. Other branches of Christianity are NOWHERE near the type of "Christianity" Hitler wanted. You can't keep the original message of Jesus and then initiate mass murder, eugenics, war, invasion, conquest, violence of every kind, and hatred. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions, according to Hitler.

I'm sure Jesus would approve.

He thought he was doing god's work but come on.

saying that he was one of many ways to salvation,

Christianity says that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation. Christ himself is noted as saying he was the only way to salvation.

or that he wasn't really the son of God.

If Hitler ever said this, it automatically negates the claim that he had a different type of Christianity. ALL branches of Christianity believe that Jesus was the son of god; it's imperative to the very foundation of the entire religion. If Hitler didn't believe he was the son of god, then he wanted some new religion.

The additions you speak of are very minor.

Minor? If we're not talking from the perspective of the Orthodox Church, then yes they are minor. Otherwise, they're grievous offenses. (The Church was built on pagan practices, I know, and they're hypocrites for calling other people heretical for it.)

If Hitler's brand of Christianity doesn't qualify as Christian because of some runes and other symbols being used,

It wasn't just symbols and runes. It was defective ideology(master race and racial purity)mashed with Christianity. Hell, they even denied that Christ was a Jew to fit in with THEIR beliefs. Most other branches of Christianity deal with arguing about scripture and interpretations of it while keeping the main message of the original Church alive. Hitler's "Christianity" promulgated outright denial of facts and history while simultaneously executing millions of people.

then YOUR Christianity doesn't qualify either, since you celebrate pagan holidays like Easter and Christmas.

To call what Hitler had any sort Christianity would be applying an EXTREMELY loose definition of Christianity to his ideology and practices. No other branch of Christianity posits such an unappreciative attitude towards life and the human species. No other type of Christianity dabbles in occult practices to such a degree. No other brand of Christianity would deny that Christ was the son of god OR deny that he was Jewish.

Congratulations, you are a fake Christian.

What you call me is still infinitely more accurate than calling Hitler a "Christian."

TL;DR

If we want to apply VERY, VERY liberal definitions to Christianity, then sure, Hitler was a Christian.

At 1/31/10 06:40 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: Just out of interest, ThunderBoltLegion - have you read the bible in its original Hebrew/Greek? You keep talking about this idea that any alteration makes it 'not Christianity'. Well, believe it or not, you are reading a TRANSLATION, which will inevitably be different from the source text, even if the translator did a perfect job (some concepts just don't translate completely).

This is a very good point. When the Bible was passed down it has been translated again and again and inevitably it was changed. When there was corruption in the Catholic church it especially changed. Some factions changed the text directly to affect the way the government would treat the church as an entity. Just accept that it isn't original.

At 1/31/10 11:29 AM, Warforger wrote: Hahahahahaha
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler_c ardinal4.jpg

Oh well maybe I stand corrected.......

Then again:
Maybe
Not

Kinda hard to claim he's a good ol Catholic boy when the Pope is issuing statements against Nazism and he's sending some 2500 Catholic clergymen to the gas chambers at Dachau.

But this is about technicalities, isn't it? So sure, Hitler and the Nazis were Catholic. Born and raised, never excommunicated.

I'm a firm believer that what one claims and what one IS can be two entirely different conclusions.....but maybe that's just me......

At 1/31/10 06:01 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/31/10 04:04 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: therefore Catholicism is not Christian,

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Seconded.

Before 325 there were ideological feuds between the sects, Constantine put a stop to that. Roman Catholicism emerged, and FROM ROMAN CATHOLICISM, all current denominations were formed.

So if Catholicism isn't Christian, then nothing is Christian.
Or as Brick put more simply: No true Scotsman fallacy.

At 1/31/10 08:43 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/31/10 11:29 AM, Warforger wrote: Hahahahahaha
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/hitler_c ardinal4.jpg

Oh well maybe I stand corrected.......

Then again:
Maybe
Not

Kinda hard to claim he's a good ol Catholic boy when the Pope is issuing statements against Nazism and he's sending some 2500 Catholic clergymen to the gas chambers at Dachau.

But this is about technicalities, isn't it? So sure, Hitler and the Nazis were Catholic. Born and raised, never excommunicated.

I'm a firm believer that what one claims and what one IS can be two entirely different conclusions.....but maybe that's just me......

2,500 priests, yah that sure means they were not ones who just opposed Hitler, may I remind you that Hitler gained his Anti-Semitism when he went to Church as a child? You know, where they blamed the Jews for everything bad. 2,500 priests isn't that much, now if the number went to the 100,000's then you could have somewhat of a point, but 2,500 priests is a pathetic number at most, these could just be people who opposed Hitler, not having to do with religion.

The Pope is something, but thats not solid either, Christians disagree with the Pope everyday, so what makes this one different?

At 1/31/10 10:55 PM, Warforger wrote: 2,500 priests, yah that sure means they were not ones who just opposed Hitler, may I remind you that Hitler gained his Anti-Semitism when he went to Church as a child? You know, where they blamed the Jews for everything bad. 2,500 priests isn't that much, now if the number went to the 100,000's then you could have somewhat of a point, but 2,500 priests is a pathetic number at most, these could just be people who opposed Hitler, not having to do with religion.

I'm sorry, but "2500 is a pathetic number" is not an argument. What makes 6 million so special? Maybe 60 million, but 6 million Jews? Pah.....a paltry genocide at best....

These are priests, bishops, and clergymen, in accordance with the Vatican, not random Catholics. No, Hitler targeted Catholic clergy because he disagreed with Catholicism, disagreed with the Papal edicts, and did not like the Pope's stance against Nazism.
Christian, sure. Roman Catholic they were not.

And yes, it is political, in that these priests were going along with the Pope's edict against Nazism. Hitler had them executed because they were seen as enemies of the state. They were seen as enemies of the state because they were Catholic priests, in support of the Pope's edict.

See how this works? It's just like France today. 95% claim they are Catholic. 5% actually practice their religion. So are they really Catholic?

Sorta like calling yourself an athlete, but you don't play any sports......

The Pope is something, but thats not solid either, Christians disagree with the Pope everyday

Just like Hitler and the Nazis. QED. Thanks for playing.

(I love it when people prove my points for me.)

Spinning off this tract somewhat is an argument I recall having with someone awhile back about the religiosity of Joseph Stalin as he was held up as an atheist who was trying to eliminate religion in Russia for the sake of atheism. This felt wrong to me because it's pretty clear Stalin wasn't stamping out religion or stamping out anything purely for the sake of "cause I don't like it!" or "cause I can!" but because Stalin was looking to make himself a living deity and synonymous with the Russian state. He couldn't replace Lennon as the "father" of the Communist Russian State, but he did endeavor to make himself at least the son, or perhaps even the wise brother.

So is someone really an atheist if they seek to deify themselves? Or have an actual belief that they are divine or charged with a divine mission? I think Hitler and company fall into the second category (at least insofar as thinking they had some divine mission). It's a curious thought that's bubbled up for me as I've read the thread over the last day or so.

At 2/1/10 11:56 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm sorry, but "2500 is a pathetic number" is not an argument. What makes 6 million so special? Maybe 60 million, but 6 million Jews? Pah.....a paltry genocide at best....

I'm pretty sure warforger was speaking relativistically, as in, 2500 is a pathetic number compared to 6 million. Obviously, there were more Jews than priests. Proportion between priests executed and priests left-to-live would be a much more meaningful statistic. Though even then the small number could be attributed to priority.

These are priests, bishops, and clergymen, in accordance with the Vatican, not random Catholics.

I'm pretty sure warforger's point was relying on the fact that they weren't random Catholics. In fact, I think warforger's point is that they weren't even random priests - as evidenced (though I don't entirely agree here) by the relatively small number of executions.

They were seen as enemies of the state because they were Catholic priests, in support of the Pope's edict.

Both, the former, or the latter?

At 2/1/10 09:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

So is someone really an atheist if they seek to deify themselves? Or have an actual belief that they are divine or charged with a divine mission?

It's possible, you never know what an existential crisis might do to someone. That, and Atheism isn't mutually exclusive with believing in some metaphysical and/or supernatural aspects of existence. (But den der not tru atheists lulz. J/k)

At 1/31/10 04:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: The big book says he did. Outside of the Bible what do we have to back any of that up really? Even the big book doesn't always agree on what he said. Not to mention the big book is written after Paul's version of Christianity takes root (the one that makes Jesus God as a man...prior to that he was a rebel leader trying to stake a claim to the Throne of David, or so I've read). That's the problem with this kind of quotation. We don't have unimpeachable sources that Jesus said these things.

We have four gospels, for the most part first hand accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that were written independently of each other documenting the ministry of Jesus from different perspectives. Sometimes they don't seem to agree but such occurrences can be reconciled with a careful examination of the text and context. We also have several epistles (letters written to churches of the time, most by the apostles) referencing what Jesus said and His teachings. For the most part all written independently of each other and circulated independently of each other for many decades before being assembled into what we know today and the New Testament. In other words the Bible in and of itself is a verifiable document as it is an assembly of several supporting sources.

The dilemma of the naysayer is that they have to deny the historical documentation in the Bible with only arguably reliable sources to the contrary (at best).

the big book is written after Paul's version of Christianity takes root (the one that makes Jesus God as a man...prior to that he was a rebel leader trying to stake a claim to the Throne of David, or so I've read).

Christianity was started (or took root) during and immediately after the ministry of Jesus, (though the name came later) this period is recorded in the gospels and in the book of Acts. It was elaborated on in detail during the following decades; this was done in the epistles. The Bible was assembled into one book and canonized after Christianity took root. There is no Paul's version; Paul had an intimate knowledge of the principles of Christianity and elaborated on them in detail, Christ's divinity was already well established.

As far as Jesus being a rebel leader, that seems like a concept from the Jewish Pharisee and later the Roman point of view. The Pharisees were at odds with Jesus because of who He claimed to be and because they could do nothing to disprove His claims (so they eventually got Him killed). Later the Romans, who were primarily Pagan, were plagued with Christians growing so rapidly in numbers that they were taking over Rome itself. And eventually the Christians succeeded (in a way, but that's another discussion) under the reign of Constantine. Before this if you recall Christians were being martyred in vast numbers by Rome. It comes as no surprise that Jesus would be presented in such a way, a "rebel leader" by Roman historians. After all if they did not accept Him as the Son of God why would they present Him as such in their history?

It's still Christianity because the central tenant is a belief in Christ's divinity and that he is making a place for you in his Father's Kingdom after death. You're splitting hairs like Bach said and making it to where your definition is the correct one, but any one you don't like isn't. Just because you perceive it to be radical (and in truth it may be radical) doesn't mean it's something different but with the same name. Christianity has always been a rather fractal religion. The biggest reason Roman Catholicism was invented was because Emperor Constantine realized he had converted to a religion that did not in fact have one voice, and if he was to be Emperor and make his religion official, it HAD to have a single voice. So he did that, then The Protestants looked to reform it and that movement has become fractal as way. But as long as they still keep the central points about Jesus then they are in fact Christians. Just because you don't like them doesn't exclude them, it is a bigoted viewpoint to think or say otherwise. Just because it's your truth, does not make it THE truth.

You are right, the central tenant is indeed Christ's divinity, without that we have virtually nothing. Putting aside the offshoot "Christian" religions that deny this in one way or another you still have some who teach doctrine that runs contrary to what Christ taught. I believe that it is forgivable to be mistaken on some points (not all) as long as you don't deliberately deny the truth spoken of in the Bible. It's when people start adding things, or altering them, or taking things away that you have something different than Christianity regardless of how many central points remain. For example 'works vs. faith' as the path to salvation; this is a VERY essential point of Christianity, something the Catholics have wrong. And yes, I am splitting hairs to an extent but this is only the tip of the iceberg (so to speak), the problem that I'm getting at runs much deeper than just the name. The name 'Christian' is only an unimportant symptom of (and compared to) the root problems.

As for the historical aspect of your paragraph, there's a reason we have a separation of church and state in this country. The state corrupts the church which in turn corrupts the state, it's a vicious circle. This is exactly what we have seen in Catholicism and the corruption has gone so far that it's no longer Christianity. In fact it wasn't Christianity for most of its history (if any at all).

See above about how just because something is you're truth, doesn't make it the truth. You're truth anyway is a distortion and a differentiation of what Christianity began as, so already you've changed the definition to fit a distortion (and no, just because it's been a couple thousand years doesn't absolve you of the fact that you're being a hypocrite right now in saying you can't accept the distortions of others when you're beliefs depend on a fundamental distortion to begin with).

Also, what you're doing is very much self-righteous. "My way is the right way, if I don't agree with it, it's the wrong way" how is that NOT self-righteousness?

It's not my truth, I follow Christ and His teachings to the best of my ability and nearly every day pray for strength to do better. This is not different than what Christianity began as. If you have some distortion from original Christianity in mind that you believe I am guilty of then I'd like to hear it; either for my own benefit or so I can set the record straight. Regardless, I am making nothing up and I am distorting nothing (at the very least not intentionally), I am trying to sift through the distortions so the truth can be made known.

I am not intentionally being arrogant (if I came across that way then I apologize as that was not my intention). Otherwise I am indeed being "self-righteous" as I believe I know the truth and am applying it in my arguments. I cannot apologize for the truth so at the risk of sounding overly self-sacrificing; I'll be self-righteous and I'll be a bigot if that's what all this makes me.

ps: Sorry for the long post, I didn't intend for it to get this long...

At 1/31/10 06:40 PM, S4cr3d-Cr4p wrote: Just out of interest, ThunderBoltLegion - have you read the bible in its original Hebrew/Greek? You keep talking about this idea that any alteration makes it 'not Christianity'. Well, believe it or not, you are reading a TRANSLATION, which will inevitably be different from the source text, even if the translator did a perfect job (some concepts just don't translate completely). That's assuming that they did a perfect job, and didn't re-interpret any of the things that they said. That's assuming that they weren't human. And they were. If you want to understand God and are TRULY a Christian, I suggest you start learning some hebrew.

Just "any alteration" does not make it not Christianity; for Christianity to become something else from the original it must be a fundamental change. For a reverse example, if Jesus' 'Sermon on the Mount' took place on a boat and was called the 'Sermon on a Boat' then there has been no fundamental change that affects Christian doctrine. You are right that the translations we have aren't perfect but they are close. Learning Greek, Hebrew and Chaldean would help to understand the specifics of the scripture but no new essential doctrine or faith altering concept would likely be discovered. Even if something new and essential could be discovered we would know about it by now as there are thousands of people who know the languages the Bible was written in that use that knowledge to study the Bible in depth, in fact I know one of them personally (my soon to be sister-in-law as a matter of fact).

Furthermore I have a concordance of the Bible and other resources available to me if something doesn't seem to make sense or I want to get a better feeling for what the specific meaning is. I can reference words in the Bible with the original text in its original language. Still, all this is beyond what is necessary for Christianity. The essential parts are the core tenants, the doctrine and a relationship with God. The first two can be easily determined with the English translation; the third is personal and grows from there.

And don't tell me you have more important things to do. This is God, we're talking about. To you, this should be the most important thing in the world. After all, it would be terrible to live your life based on something that clearly isn't the word of God (or even close).

Studying Gods word is indeed among the most important things in my life. If I felt it was necessary for my salvation to learn the languages the Bible was originally written in then I would. (And in fact I have a few words memorized and hope to build up a vocabulary of words I feel will come in handy.) However I don't feel that it is necessary to learn a whole new language to understand the Bible a little better (though I do fantasize about it sometimes :P I'm a nerd, I know it.)

At 1/31/10 08:28 PM, Saxturbation wrote: This is a very good point. When the Bible was passed down it has been translated again and again and inevitably it was changed. When there was corruption in the Catholic church it especially changed. Some factions changed the text directly to affect the way the government would treat the church as an entity. Just accept that it isn't original.

Yes, thank you.
This is one of many reasons Catholicism is not Christianity, they don't even use a proper translation. I got into this a little before. They use one of two almost identical lines of Bibles that are corrupt, and I can prove it (actually I already partially did earlier). Anyway, you are right that some 'factions' did indeed change the text deliberately for various reasons such as politics, money, power, stupidity, greed in general, hate, etc...

However there is one of the three lines that has remained virtually unchanged for nearly 2000 years, it's called 'Textus receptus' which means 'received text'. This is the line from which we get the King James Version; this line also includes the Dead Sea Scrolls. The biggest differences in nearly 2000 years are a small handful of words that change the actual text very little and the meaning behind it (which is the important part) even less if at all. (For example, the word "holy" is repeated three times in a row instead of the original two.)

At 1/31/10 04:04 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: It is relevant, just bear with me...
To be Christian

Follow the asterisk *

To use an analogy, if you take a car and gut the interior leaving only the frame and wheels but no functionality as a car, and fill it with... tuna (or whatever) do you still have a car? Well it looks like a car from the outside and you even have someone trying to sell it to you as a car but look closer and your going to smell the rotten fish and quickly realize it is a deception.

Dangerous analogy. I refuse to expand this conversation to 'the functionality of religion' unless you want to focus solely on that for a while. It's a topic in and of itself.

The better analogy would be to refuse to acknowledge any "car" that augments or diminishes Karl Benz's ideal vision. Ofcourse this is problematic as well as "car" has become an entity separate from Karl Benz's intellectual property. But then, many forms of Christianity are just as derivative.

You cannot change essential biblical doctrine around and still be left with Christianity.

* Yes, you can, because the term does not denote the ideal form to begin with. You've decided it has, and so thus, you've created a problem, and then, the solution is to decide any less ideal form is not part of the same group.

The statement "Catholicism is a form of Christianity," is not claiming that it is the ideal. Maybe the illustration below will help...

You cannot Change the definition of Christianity or what it means to be Christian and still be left with Christianity.

If, in this statement, you are using the term as its ideal form, then I am not advocating changing the definition of Christianity.

Could you please point out where I have seemed to contradict myself so I may clarify?

1. Means: you are selectively defining christianity...
2. [Argument of "only" explaining the fallacy of the Christian "Label"]
3. End: ... to separate yourself from 'the lessers' in righteousness and in discussion.

I said "mostly"

Yeah. I was confused by that the first time you said it, as if there is some proportion between interest and validity.

Quite to the contrary, I am trying to help you understand where I'm coming from, I thought understanding my motives might be helpful.

Did you think it was that much of a mystery after I had pretty much laid out all but explicitly that "you don't like it" in an earlier post - in fact going beyond the dislike straight to the motivation for the dislike?

@thunderbolt legion.

i think you are highly confused when you say that catholicism is not a christian religion, or considered part of the scope of christianity. all you need to do is go to any number of unbiased sources to see that christianity encompasses ALL monotheistic religions in which their teachings are based on those from the prophet Jesus of Nazareth. of course, we are all intelligent to know enough that catholicism was the first, and from that, stemmed numerous PROTESTANT religions. (which is the word i think you're looking for)

i don't doubt your interest in the subject, but i do doubt either your knowledge or argument skills to prove your point. you are talking about a fundamental belief changing something to either christian or non-christian. so, for example, when you said before something about the biggest part of the protestant movements changing because of their disillusionment with the catholic church's greed, what really happened? with the exception of religions such as mormonism, who claim they have their own holy scripture, did that shit change that much enough to divide catholicism from the protestants?

well, protestant leaders led the people astray, under the guise that fundamentalism is the key....meaning no more fancy pipe organs, choirs, and 12-bishop masses on top of altars made of marble that cost tons of money and labor for. you add 'good works' in. but what is to say that's a core belief to separate catholicism from protestantism.

really, i don't think that the bible is ALL you should be reading, no matter what text. it doesn't matter what language you learn it in. why? because if you look at the books made, they were made by prophets, many of them writing letters to civilizations who did not understand the aremaic language used spoken by jesus himself. you can spend a lifetime learning all those languages and still not get close enough because you also have to understand the cultural and historical context of to whom each letter was written, when, and why.

studying the mechanics of the bible itself would even ask you to explore the entire judaic history...and not just the torah, but the talmud, their culture, everything there. the fact that you have about 50 versions of the Bible out today just proves that point. everyone decided that the bible needed a little 'sprucing up' according to their own will (such as every prophet who wrote in the bible, king henry, king james, john luther, john brown, etc) because they thought they had a better grip on how shit should be done.

the catholic church is NOT without faults, and for a while, it was running like a country, but it is complete ignorance to think that the catholics were the only ones who altered the bible to fit their motives. in the end, it all comes down to power and greed and who can get people to follow them the most. shit, why do you think jesus was crucified in the first place? (oh yeah, i forgot...the catholics did it haha)

At 2/2/10 01:52 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: The better analogy would be to refuse to acknowledge any "car" that augments or diminishes Karl Benz's ideal vision. Ofcourse this is problematic as well as "car" has become an entity separate from Karl Benz's intellectual property. But then, many forms of Christianity are just as derivative.

Sure, we can do that. However "car" in this case would be analogous to a very loose definition of religion itself.
Karl Benz has a vision for a car and creates his vision. Later other people come along and decide they are going to try and make it better or customize his original vision so they change things around, add to and/or take components away. What is left is something other than Karl Benz's original vision. This is not a perfect analogy but it seems to get the basic point across.

* Yes, you can, because the term does not denote the ideal form to begin with. You've decided it has, and so thus, you've created a problem, and then, the solution is to decide any less ideal form is not part of the same group.
The statement "Catholicism is a form of Christianity," is not claiming that it is the ideal. Maybe the illustration below will help...

Yes, except it was not my decision. What it comes down to is an essential part of Christianity: salvation. If an offshoot of Christianity does not lead to or inherently teach the path to salvation then it is not Christianity. Anything less than ideal on this point and the whole religion falls short and cannot be called Christianity.

If, in this statement, you are using the term as its ideal form, then I am not advocating changing the definition of Christianity.

Yes, Christianity in it's 'ideal form'. However anything less than it's ideal form on the point of salvation and you have nothing.

Also if you do not follow the teachings of Christ you are not a Christian. Catholicism for example does not follow the teachings of Christ, they may say they do or it may be assumed they do but this is a lie.

1. Means: you are selectively defining christianity...
2. [Argument of "only" explaining the fallacy of the Christian "Label"]
3. End: ... to separate yourself from 'the lessers' in righteousness and in discussion.

I am pointing out the true definition of Christianity. Part of my argument is that the label of Christianity has been abused for nefarious purposes and used to describe other offshoot religions that have lost something or purposefully taken away from the original thus leaving something that no longer fits the true definition.

To go a step further; this is deceptive because someone may think they are following Christ and simply trust in a religious institution (and not their own Bible) that they will lead them to salvation when in fact they will not.

---

Your illustration is not entirely accurate.

From a historical point of view:

After original sin a sacrificial system was set up for redemption.

Several hundred years after Gods covenant with Abraham, Judaism was formed during the time of Moses and was specific to the nation of Israel (it is my understanding that everyone else was still under the original system). This is when the Ten Commandments were written in stone, the law was written, the rituals were put in place, etc...

What is widely misunderstood is that the blood of animals was not (and is not) sufficient to pay for sins, the sacrificial system of old was an act of obedience to God and was symbolic of the sacrifice to come... When Jesus Christ died His blood took the place of the blood being spilled for redemption in the old system and paid for all sins. His death fulfilled the old law, the old rituals, the old sacrificial system, all according to plan. Thus was born Christianity out of a fulfillment of the old system.

What we are dealing with is a line:

Original sacrificial system > Judaism > Christianity

There were of course other religions that sprung up and out of these along the way but (unless they were within Gods will) they were (or are) wrong.

As for today there are only two 'religions': you are either following God or you are not following God. The people who follow God we call Christians. If you no longer follow the fundamental doctrines of Christianity you are no longer following God and therefore are no longer Christian.

Religions like Catholicism are offshoots of Christianity that no longer follow the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, therefore they are no longer Christian.

At 2/2/10 06:33 PM, Strauss wrote: i think you are highly confused when you say that catholicism is not a christian religion, or considered part of the scope of christianity. all you need to do is go to any number of unbiased sources to see that christianity encompasses ALL monotheistic religions in which their teachings are based on those from the prophet Jesus of Nazareth.

This is exactly what I am arguing against. The teachings that a given religion follows must actually be the teaching of Christ to be Christian, it is not enough to simply be 'based on them'.

of course, we are all intelligent to know enough that catholicism was the first, and from that, stemmed numerous PROTESTANT religions. (which is the word i think you're looking for)

I did cover this before:
Furthermore Catholicism wasn't formed until well over 300 years after Christianity was formed by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester of Rome in the early fourth century. It was later made the state religion by Emperor Theodosius where people who did not profess the faith of the Bishop of Rome were subject to harsh punishment. The Catholic Church would go on to a very bloody future where they were involved in the martyring of millions of true Christians (the Waldensians and the Inquisition come to mind).

i don't doubt your interest in the subject, but i do doubt either your knowledge or argument skills to prove your point. you are talking about a fundamental belief changing something to either christian or non-christian. so, for example, when you said before something about the biggest part of the protestant movements changing because of their disillusionment with the catholic church's greed, what really happened? with the exception of religions such as mormonism, who claim they have their own holy scripture, did that shit change that much enough to divide catholicism from the protestants?

Okay, what happened was that people started realizing the Catholic Church was not teaching what Christ taught so they shed themselves of all the false doctrine and made an attempt to revert back to the original Christianity as taught by Christ and later His apostles. These people were called "Protestants".

well, protestant leaders led the people astray, under the guise that fundamentalism is the key....meaning no more fancy pipe organs, choirs, and 12-bishop masses on top of altars made of marble that cost tons of money and labor for. you add 'good works' in. but what is to say that's a core belief to separate catholicism from protestantism.

Some Protestants were just as wrong as Catholicism on certain issues and in some cases in the opposite direction. What are to determine the validity of a core belief are the teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.

really, i don't think that the bible is ALL you should be reading, no matter what text. it doesn't matter what language you learn it in. why? because if you look at the books made, they were made by prophets, many of them writing letters to civilizations who did not understand the aremaic language used spoken by jesus himself. you can spend a lifetime learning all those languages and still not get close enough because you also have to understand the cultural and historical context of to whom each letter was written, when, and why.
studying the mechanics of the bible itself would even ask you to explore the entire judaic history...and not just the torah, but the talmud, their culture, everything there.

No fundamental doctrine would be found to be radically different. At best we might gain a little better understanding of some specifics, but in a general, broad sense the Bible as it appears today, in the English language and in our culture (as different as it is) still is clear cut enough for us to understand what it's teaching.

the fact that you have about 50 versions of the Bible out today just proves that point. everyone decided that the bible needed a little 'sprucing up' according to their own will (such as every prophet who wrote in the bible, king henry, king james, john luther, john brown, etc) because they thought they had a better grip on how shit should be done.

Except we have archeological proof (the Dead Sea Scrolls) that the Bible line of 'Textus Receptus' (received text; the same line that contains the King James Version) has not changed in any significant way in nearly 2000 years.

There are however numerous versions that are corrupt.

the catholic church is NOT without faults, and for a while, it was running like a country, but it is complete ignorance to think that the catholics were the only ones who altered the bible to fit their motives. in the end, it all comes down to power and greed and who can get people to follow them the most. shit, why do you think jesus was crucified in the first place? (oh yeah, i forgot...the catholics did it haha)

I agree, many other groups have done the same thing, Catholicism is simply the biggest. Power and greed, as you say, are indeed the primary motives behind the formation of a new religion or the alteration of an already established one. By forming a religion like Catholicism out of Christianity you don't have to start from the ground up in obtaining followers, you can simply string the existing ones along and slowly change what they believe so they don't take notice.

At 2/2/10 06:59 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Later other people come along and decide they are going to try and make it better or customize his original vision so they change things around, add to and/or take components away. What is left is something other than Karl Benz's original vision.

And we still call them all cars.

Yes, except it was not my decision. What it comes down to is an essential part of Christianity: salvation.

Follow the asterisk *

If an offshoot of Christianity does not lead to or inherently teach the path to salvation then it is not Christianity. Anything less than ideal on this point and the whole religion falls short and cannot be called Christianity.

Sorry No. You're restricitng the parent-group definition of Christianity or completely disregarding it all together. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean it's inaccurate or dishonest - as it's not attempting to take the place of your more restricted definition.

I am pointing out the true definition of Christianity. Part of my argument is that the label of Christianity has been abused for nefarious purposes and used to describe other offshoot religions that have lost something or purposefully taken away from the original thus leaving something that no longer fits the true definition.

To go a step further; this is deceptive because someone may think they are following Christ and simply trust in a religious institution (and not their own Bible) that they will lead them to salvation when in fact they will not.

So because people CAN or may be ill-informed to the extent that they abuse or misunderstand it... it's wrong! No.

Your illustration is not entirely accurate.

Yes it is... cause it's not an historical illustration.

From a historical point of view:

That's great, but I'm not speaking from the historical point of view. And the historical point of view isn't the only view of it.

In fact, up to this point your entire argument has been irrelevent of historical sequence, and almost solely to do with the intentions and message of Jesus Christ. To equate sequence with validity is a fallacy, straight up.

But of course...

What we are dealing with is a line:

Original sacrificial system > Judaism > Christianity

There were of course other religions that sprung up and out of these along the way but (unless they were within Gods will) they were (or are) wrong.

... you can't go all the way with the sequence argument cause then Christianity would be wrong in light of judaism etc.

But this is still completely inhabiting a context aside of the phrase "Catholicism is a form of christianity." Just because you refuse to recognize a context in which the statement is perfectly accurate, does not mean the statement is only innaccurate.

As for today there are only two 'religions': you are either following God or you are not following God. The people who follow God we call Christians. If you no longer follow the fundamental doctrines of Christianity you are no longer following God and therefore are no longer Christian.

Awesome. Now you're a bigot. You can whine (though even temperedly as you will) as much as you want about how everyone else has it wrong, but if this is what it amounts to - that is if it circumvents any means to objectively evaluate it - then you're full of shit to impose it as an objective truth. At least you had something when you were harping on the historical accuracy of Christ's message.

* I also find it kind of slimy that, up to this point you've gone without dealing with functionality (salvation). Then, after I tell you I'm not really interested in getting into that in the midst of the current discussion... you practically hammer it in.

Let's take a trip back in time. When, in response to a clearly hierarchical use of the term "Christianity" you hop on your high-horse to let us all know there's only one true Christianity. And then proceed as if you must because a non-hierarchical use of the term is inaccurate and misleading. Was I the only one that saw that happen? Pox? Avie?

Or when you said you only care about the truth. But later admit that you're debating "mostly" because of personal dislike.

Or also following your statement about only caring about the truth, when you backed up your argument with facts, as if truth and fact were analogous. Only to finally come around and say 'if it don't save you, it ain't christian.' Which is as factually unverifiable as it gets.

At 2/2/10 12:12 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: We have four gospels, for the most part first hand accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that were written independently of each other documenting the ministry of Jesus from different perspectives.

Eeeeh, most research pegs those gospels (except for maybe Luke or John...which one is the last one? Is it John?) as being written many years AFTER Jesus's life time. Also they are heavily biased to favor the Roman perspective because if you're writing for a certain audience, it's a bad idea to tell them they killed the best thing ever. None of these are first hand, also there's the fact that they are also obviously written after the conversion of Paul who COMPLETELY changed the meaning of Christianity. The amount you don't even know about your own belief system is staggering.

Sometimes they don't seem to agree but such occurrences can be reconciled with a careful examination of the text and context.

In other words "I need this to make sense because I've already decided this must be true...so now I just have to be able to explain why it's true". Bias is not your friend. Also these are the accounts that were VOTED on as being the best or most authentic, there's still all the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor.

We also have several epistles (letters written to churches of the time, most by the apostles) referencing what Jesus said and His teachings.

How do we know they're genuine? Or that the writers aren't bullshitting? This is not evidence of anything.

For the most part all written independently of each other and circulated independently of each other for many decades before being assembled into what we know today and the New Testament.

So because a bunch of believers are saying roughly the same things it's verifiable? I see what you're driving at but the fact is Christianity is built on massive misinterpretations of Jesus's teachings (and that does include things that did make the cut for the Bible).

In other words the Bible in and of itself is a verifiable document as it is an assembly of several supporting sources.

No it isn't, because you have completed twisted the facts around as has the church throughout history. There is a mountain of evidence that everything you're saying here is merely the dogmatic sanitized version of history of the church. It does not hold up against other independent research.

The dilemma of the naysayer is that they have to deny the historical documentation in the Bible with only arguably reliable sources to the contrary (at best).

The bible has humanity going extinct over and over, NOTHING in the Bible is verified by ANY OTHER independent historical evidence. The flood is not verified, nothing in the New Testament is verified. There's texts that circulated at the time that disagree with other texts. Christianity never had it's shit together until it got politicized by Constantine. The fact that you are saying a book put together by committee, for political reasons is historical is massively ignorant.

Christianity was started (or took root) during and immediately after the ministry of Jesus, (though the name came later) this period is recorded in the gospels and in the book of Acts.

No, again you're going by the Bible as your source and the Bible is not reliable. Christianity started as a rift in the Jewish church structure, and Paul is the first Christian (someone who came well after the apostles and all that) to claim Jesus's divinity (Paul was a Roman Soldier who converted after having an alleged vision in the desert in which he was visited by Jesus). Do some research outside your holy book every now and again.

It was elaborated on in detail during the following decades; this was done in the epistles. The Bible was assembled into one book and canonized after Christianity took root. There is no Paul's version; Paul had an intimate knowledge of the principles of Christianity and elaborated on them in detail, Christ's divinity was already well established.

I don't think we have anything more to discuss if all you're going to use as a source is a book assembled after one ruler (Emperor Constantine) converts. Your ignorance is staggering.

After all if they did not accept Him as the Son of God why would they present Him as such in their history?

Because Emperor Constantine was in a civil war for the throne of Rome. Constantine won that civil war and claimed that he had a vision of Jesus the night before the decisive battle....or maybe it was just a fiery cross with a voice saying "win with this". But the point is he claimed this was a sign that he and Rome needed to convert. So once he's in power he declares Christianity the state religion...and then proceeds to warp it. The evidence suggests Constantine wasn't really even a little Christian...what he did was take a growing religion that was still pretty fractal and without a central authority. So Constantine founds his church and begins changing things to his liking (Constantine was a Pagan Sun worshipper before his conversion and his changes seem to reflect his idea of making his new savior be passively identified with his old religion. The holy sabbath is moved from Saturday to Sunday (the day worshippers of the sun sanctified as holy). Jesus has his birthday celebrated in December, around the time of the winter solstice, when according to the story he should be born in the spring (the fact that the nativity is also born of church need is a whole other matter), also a date held sacred to sun worshippers. Constantine orders the Council of Nicea, which gathers leaders from across the now Christian Empire, and they assess, evaluate, and ultimately vote on what constitutes the new testament, and what of the old testament will be useful and allowed into their Bible. They created a political document that was meant to control and codify their version of the Christian religion, and since they had the will and the ability to enforce it, that's the one that crushed all other sects and hung on.

As for the historical aspect of your paragraph, there's a reason we have a separation of church and state in this country. The state corrupts the church which in turn corrupts the state, it's a vicious circle. This is exactly what we have seen in Catholicism and the corruption has gone so far that it's no longer Christianity. In fact it wasn't Christianity for most of its history (if any at all).

Oh wow, so I challenge your beliefs with history, and you tell me the state is corrupting the church and the facts? But you only have your "facts" BECAUSE OF THE ROMAN STATE!!!! It's fucking hysterical. But I agree with the overall point that politics and religion do corrupt each other and everybody would be better off if the two could stay away from each other but the problem is they can't. Because both cut to the most deeply held and influential of beliefs an individual can hold. They are ideology, and any ideology will always be competitive with other ideologies, that's just the nature of the beast.

It's not my truth, I follow Christ and His teachings to the best of my ability and nearly every day pray for strength to do better. This is not different than what Christianity began as. If you have some distortion from original Christianity in mind that you believe I am guilty of then I'd like to hear it; either for my own benefit or so I can set the record straight. Regardless, I am making nothing up and I am distorting nothing (at the very least not intentionally), I am trying to sift through the distortions so the truth can be made known.

You do not possess relevant facts. You do not represent represent history accurately. You are ignorant of the most basic facts about how you're belief system has evolved. You also are not necessarily following the teachings of Christ because Jesus never actually wrote his teachings down so we have no primary source to work from on that. We have only secondary sources (the gospels). It is widely held outside of the church (which has bias) that these are not unimpeachable. Therefore it is YOUR TRUTH because you cannot verify it as "The Truth". You even admitted in the end paragraph I did not quote that you believe this to be the truth so you spread it, which is precisely what I've been saying. You have a belief, you believe it to be true, you believe it's your duty to spread it. But the problem is it is not backed up empirically and is not verifiable outside of if I only use the Christian Church as my source...and they have every reason to tell me they're truth is the only truth.

I don't know how to speak any more plainly then this. I'm begging you to do some actual outside the church research before posting again.

What do you propose in place of our current justice system? Or do you really believe religions and religious-affiliated criminals aren't prosecuted? Do youbelieve all criminals are prosecuted "fairly"? Does your distaste for religious cohesiveness force you to take a hardliner stance on all miscarriages of justices, or merely hate the faithful unjustly?

I know that some are prosecuted, and even those people are let off easy. The Vatican could commit murder, admit to it and get off scott-free if they wanted. Course, the public backlash would destroy them. Which is why they hide their offences, like hate crimes, either under the rouse of some religious bullshit, hide it from the media (which they do very well) or unleash the beast that is thier political immunity. What im saying is that they shouldnt have political immunity, they should be able to be judged and fined and etc. like every other business or group.

Is that corrupt beyond all hell? YES YES YES.

Hell isn't supposed to be corrupt. It's supposed to be a well-built system handling the souls of the damned. The only corruption we may glean from Biblical hell is the subversive spite of Satan against God's heaven.

And then there's Church funding. Did you know that they dont have to pay taxes? At all?

Something about freedom of religion. Should I educate you on the history of taxing religions, or will you just take my word that it's been tried in the past?

Actually you have a point there. The public wont like the government taxing churches and etc.

This isnt a democracy, its a leniency, and right now its putting a shit-load of weight in the "public opinion" rather than the "whats right" category.

What weight? Explain yourself.

I meant weight as in focus, money, you know, attention. the government CARE about thier public opinion than justice. they, essentially, arent doing thier job.

Intellectual ignorance is a larger problem.

aaaand another snippy one-liner. this is a debate, stop with the personal attacks.

At 2/1/10 10:34 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: I'm pretty sure warforger was speaking relativistically, as in, 2500 is a pathetic number compared to 6 million. Obviously, there were more Jews than priests. Proportion between priests executed and priests left-to-live would be a much more meaningful statistic. Though even then the small number could be attributed to priority.

Could be and must be are two different things. There are multiple interpretations here, and neither of us have presented enough evidence to rule out extraneous arguments. That said......

I have a papal statement against Nazism and 2500 dead Catholic priests as evidence against the idea that Nazism was somehow aligned with the Vatican.

He has a picture of Hitler shaking hands with the Pope (which really only brings to MY mind that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam).

If this is trustworthy, there are 26,000 Catholic priests in Poland. How that might correlate to WWII numbers is beyond me though.

I'm pretty sure warforger's point was relying on the fact that they weren't random Catholics. In fact, I think warforger's point is that they weren't even random priests - as evidenced (though I don't entirely agree here) by the relatively small number of executions.

Both, the former, or the latter?

Tis the question.
My wager is both.

This is the same argument people always present against Stalin.
Did he hate religion, or did he kill religious figures because they were seen as political rivals? Why were they seen as political rivals? Well because they were religious figures.

I'm not sure if this is chicken and egg, or simply muddy waters.

At 2/2/10 12:14 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Yes, thank you.
This is one of many reasons Catholicism is not Christianity, they don't even use a proper translation. I got into this a little before. They use one of two almost identical lines of Bibles that are corrupt, and I can prove it (actually I already partially did earlier). Anyway, you are right that some 'factions' did indeed change the text deliberately for various reasons such as politics, money, power, stupidity, greed in general, hate, etc...

You crossed a line, now you're in MY domain. I read Koine Greek. There's only one translation, and that's Koine Greek (discounting the original Arabic texts).

But I will tell you this:
Vulgate Latin is a damn lot closer to ancient Greek than anything you're reading.

However there is one of the three lines that has remained virtually unchanged for nearly 2000 years, it's called 'Textus receptus' which means 'received text'.

Yes. For most intents and purposes, it means "received text". But that doesn't do the Latin justice, as you are no doubt WELL aware. So more literally, what does it mean, oh great scholar of the Bible?

This is the line from which we get the King James Version; this line also includes the Dead Sea Scrolls. The biggest differences in nearly 2000 years are a small handful of words that change the actual text very little and the meaning behind it (which is the important part) even less if at all. (For example, the word "holy" is repeated three times in a row instead of the original two.)

You keep talking about "original", but I doubt you've ever seen the original texts, or would even recognize them if I showed them to you.

So I'll bite, since you have clearly got my attention.
What original versions are you reading?

More importantly (and because I've had this conversation with dozens of people just like you), where are you getting all this information from?

I'd bet money you don't read either Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Koine Greek. So that really only leaves you parroting what someone else told you. So reveal your sources. Who's telling you Catholicism is using incorrect translations? Who's telling you what the "original" says? What translation IS the closest bet.

Because I'm reading this one. And I'm fairly sure I'm gonna have a LOT better grasp of linguistic differences than you will.

And I would love for you to prove me wrong.

At 2/2/10 10:05 PM, Imperator wrote: If this is trustworthy, there are 26,000 Catholic priests in Poland. How that might correlate to WWII numbers is beyond me though.

it would be difficult to say but comparing the numbers of Catholic priests in Poland (a country with very strong beliefs) with the number of those killed gives us a figure of nearly 10%.
10% may not be a large number but it does indicate a focus was placed on the priesthood, although it says absolutley nothing as to the reason why. a more appropriate analysis would likely come through use of the numbers of priests per capita within the subject country (i am assuming the priests killed were German, please correct me if i am wrong) as it would provide some degree of accuracy when coupled with war time populations (and it is unlikely that interest in the priesthood would vary by such a large degree as to provide any substantial change in priests per capita).

pop. of Poland in 1939: 35 million
Catholic priests per capita (CPPC): 0.698 per 1000
estimated number of priests in 1939: 24,430
est. % killed if applied to Poland: 10.23%

pop. of Germany 1939: 80,600,000
CPPC: 0.228 per 1000
estimated number of priests in 1939: 18,376.8
est. % killed if applied to Germany: 13.6%

i cannot claim that these numbers are particularly accurate. but given the fact that the priesthood is a lifelong vocation, it is within reason to assume that short of a sudden rise in interest, or mass changes of heart amongst the priesthood (or mass death), the number of priests per capita should not vary sharply in such a short time.
now if these killings were not limited to one country or another, the above percentages will obviously be much different.

yes, yes, that was a very simplistic analysis, but it hopefully helps frame the events in a more readily comprehensible manner. plus it wouldn't take much effort to correct for what i may be unaware of.

Sorry for the delay.

At 2/2/10 08:06 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: And we still call them all cars.

Like I said, not a perfect analogy.

Sorry No. You're restricitng the parent-group definition of Christianity or completely disregarding it all together.

Correct.

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean it's inaccurate or dishonest - as it's not attempting to take the place of your more restricted definition.

That's the point, it is inaccurate and dishonest.

So because people CAN or may be ill-informed to the extent that they abuse or misunderstand it... it's wrong! No.

That's a little simplistic but yes. But it's not the truth for other reasons.

Yes it is... cause it's not an historical illustration.
That's great, but I'm not speaking from the historical point of view. And the historical point of view isn't the only view of it.
In fact, up to this point your entire argument has been irrelevent of historical sequence, and almost solely to do with the intentions and message of Jesus Christ.

History is important in understanding the present.

To equate sequence with validity is a fallacy, straight up.
... you can't go all the way with the sequence argument cause then Christianity would be wrong in light of judaism etc.

The point of the historical sequence was that Christianity fulfilled the law of Judaism essentially replacing it.

But this is still completely inhabiting a context aside of the phrase "Catholicism is a form of christianity." Just because you refuse to recognize a context in which the statement is perfectly accurate, does not mean the statement is only innaccurate.

It's inaccurate because it's untrue. Catholicism does not hold to the essential teachings of Christ that make up Christianity.

Awesome. Now you're a bigot.

Thank you.
But what if I'm right, what am I then?

You can whine (though even temperedly as you will) as much as you want about how everyone else has it wrong, but if this is what it amounts to - that is if it circumvents any means to objectively evaluate it - then you're full of shit to impose it as an objective truth. At least you had something when you were harping on the historical accuracy of Christ's message.

Objectivity is relative to ones world view. Your secular world view is just as corrupted as you see mine as. See, I can play that game too.

* I also find it kind of slimy that, up to this point you've gone without dealing with functionality (salvation). Then, after I tell you I'm not really interested in getting into that in the midst of the current discussion... you practically hammer it in.

It became relevant...

Let's take a trip back in time. When, in response to a clearly hierarchical use of the term "Christianity" you hop on your high-horse to let us all know there's only one true Christianity. And then proceed as if you must because a non-hierarchical use of the term is inaccurate and misleading.

Old sacrificial system > Judaism > Christianity
Vs.
Christianity is an entity unto itself that excludes offshoot religions that don't teach truth.

I think those are two completely different things.

Or when you said you only care about the truth. But later admit that you're debating "mostly" because of personal dislike.

My mistake to involve personal feelings in the matter, you must see that as weakness.

Or also following your statement about only caring about the truth, when you backed up your argument with facts, as if truth and fact were analogous. Only to finally come around and say 'if it don't save you, it ain't christian.' Which is as factually unverifiable as it gets.

Being saved is personal however it is part of being a Christian. Some religions have teachings that run contrary to what you must do to be saved.

Would you like to know how to be saved?

-----------

At 2/2/10 10:05 PM, Imperator wrote: You crossed a line, now you're in MY domain. I read Koine Greek. There's only one translation, and that's Koine Greek (discounting the original Arabic texts).

Are you trying to intimidate me over the internet?

...Koine Greek was the original language most of the New Testament was written it, I am well aware of this.

But I will tell you this:
Vulgate Latin is a damn lot closer to ancient Greek than anything you're reading.

Really...

Yes. For most intents and purposes, it means "received text". But that doesn't do the Latin justice, as you are no doubt WELL aware. So more literally, what does it mean, oh great scholar of the Bible?

I did not claim to be a scholar of the Bible; I am but a humble layman. So tell me oh great oracle of ancient languages, what does it truly mean?
(See, I can be facetious too :)

You keep talking about "original", but I doubt you've ever seen the original texts, or would even recognize them if I showed them to you.

So I'll bite, since you have clearly got my attention.
What original versions are you reading?

I primarily use the King James Version.

More importantly (and because I've had this conversation with dozens of people just like you), where are you getting all this information from?
I'd bet money you don't read either Hebrew, Aramaic, nor Koine Greek. So that really only leaves you parroting what someone else told you. So reveal your sources. Who's telling you Catholicism is using incorrect translations? Who's telling you what the "original" says? What translation IS the closest bet.

I already alluded that I don't read any of those languages in another post.

I have no reason not to "reveal my sources" however I do question your motives. Would you attack the source(s) rather than refute the argument? And if not then why would you need a source?

Because I'm reading this one. And I'm fairly sure I'm gonna have a LOT better grasp of linguistic differences than you will.

Okay, yeah I bet you would...
What I'm getting at has little to do with how the words themselves were actually translated but rather deliberate alterations to the meaning of the text.

If you'll humor me, could you please tell me how the Lords prayer (Luke 11:2-4) reads in the version of the Bible you use?

I believe it will read:
"Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial."
(Or something equivalent.)

In contrast to the KJV:
"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

And another one, how bout Mark 15:28? What does your version say?

At 2/2/10 08:47 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Eeeeh, most research pegs those gospels (except for maybe Luke or John...which one is the last one? Is it John?) as being written many years AFTER Jesus's life time. Also they are heavily biased to favor the Roman perspective because if you're writing for a certain audience, it's a bad idea to tell them they killed the best thing ever. None of these are first hand,

If you recall Rome was martyring Christians from 64 AD on to the time of Constantine, I don't think Christians of the time were too concerned about hurting Rome's feelings. If the Bible was written to favor the Roman perspective (and it wasn't) then it would have been written before 64 AD when there was hope of converting Romans, after that you could be killed just for being a Christian (and presenting Romans with Biblical text even if it was "biased to favor the Roman perspective").

John is last. And you're right but only partially. They were written many years after Christ's death but by people who were actually there.

also there's the fact that they are also obviously written after the conversion of Paul who COMPLETELY changed the meaning of Christianity. The amount you don't even know about your own belief system is staggering.

What meaning did Paul change?

In other words "I need this to make sense because I've already decided this must be true...so now I just have to be able to explain why it's true". Bias is not your friend. Also these are the accounts that were VOTED on as being the best or most authentic, there's still all the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor.

By putting words in my mouth you can make it seem like I said anything you want... neat trick.

Who voted on the Gospels? It wasn't the Council of Nicea...

I believe you are referring to the 'Gnostic gospels' when you refer to "the stuff that got left on the cutting room floor". I will get to those.

How do we know they're genuine? Or that the writers aren't bullshitting? This is not evidence of anything.

We know the people that wrote the letters and the places they are writing to did exist and the letters they wrote line up with the rest of scripture.

So because a bunch of believers are saying roughly the same things it's verifiable?

That's how a lot of history is determined.

I see what you're driving at but the fact is Christianity is built on massive misinterpretations of Jesus's teachings (and that does include things that did make the cut for the Bible).

What misinterpretations? What did Christ really teach?

No it isn't, because you have completed twisted the facts around as has the church throughout history. There is a mountain of evidence that everything you're saying here is merely the dogmatic sanitized version of history of the church. It does not hold up against other independent research.

And the sources of this "other independent research", how do we know they are any more accurate than the historical accounts in scripture? Because they are "independent" they must be unbiased? I can provide you with plenty of reasons why your sources would be biased against Christianity.

The bible has humanity going extinct over and over, NOTHING in the Bible is verified by ANY OTHER independent historical evidence. The flood is not verified, nothing in the New Testament is verified. There's texts that circulated at the time that disagree with other texts. Christianity never had it's shit together until it got politicized by Constantine. The fact that you are saying a book put together by committee, for political reasons is historical is massively ignorant.

Plenty in the Bible is verified. For example I can give you coordinates on Google Earth to find the ruins of cities mentioned in the Bible. Here's Ephesus mentioned in Revelation Chapter 2: 37 56'27.50" N 27 20'19.50 E

There were many Gnostics that sought to deny the deity of Christ, so naturally there would be some writings circulating around that disagree with scripture, once again these are known as the 'Gnostic gospels'.

Christianity was already established well before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. The problems started primarily because of the 'Gnostics' and 'Gnostic gospels' which sought to deny the deity of Christ.

And actually Christianity in Rome began to fall apart (from a doctrine point of view) when Constantine and his successors politicized it. This gave rise to Catholicism.

No, again you're going by the Bible as your source and the Bible is not reliable.

What about the Bible is not reliable? Or rather what makes other non scriptural documents any more reliable?

Christianity started as a rift in the Jewish church structure, and Paul is the first Christian (someone who came well after the apostles and all that) to claim Jesus's divinity (Paul was a Roman Soldier who converted after having an alleged vision in the desert in which he was visited by Jesus). Do some research outside your holy book every now and again.

Christianity started as a fulfillment of the old law of Judaism.
Paul was a Jew who bought Roman citizenship.
Paul was not the first person to believe in the divinity of Christ, Christ's apostles believed long before Paul.

I don't think we have anything more to discuss if all you're going to use as a source is a book assembled after one ruler (Emperor Constantine) converts. Your ignorance is staggering.

Thank you. But the Bible was not assembled after Constantine "converted", even if it was, Constantine had nothing to do with it.

Continued...

Because Emperor Constantine was in a civil war for the throne of Rome. Constantine won that civil war and claimed that he had a vision of Jesus the night before the decisive battle....or maybe it was just a fiery cross with a voice saying "win with this". But the point is he claimed this was a sign that he and Rome needed to convert. So once he's in power he declares Christianity the state religion...and then proceeds to warp it. The evidence suggests Constantine wasn't really even a little Christian...what he did was take a growing religion that was still pretty fractal and without a central authority. So Constantine founds his church and begins changing things to his liking (Constantine was a Pagan Sun worshipper before his conversion and his changes seem to reflect his idea of making his new savior be passively identified with his old religion. The holy sabbath is moved from Saturday to Sunday (the day worshippers of the sun sanctified as holy). Jesus has his birthday celebrated in December, around the time of the winter solstice, when according to the story he should be born in the spring (the fact that the nativity is also born of church need is a whole other matter), also a date held sacred to sun worshippers. Constantine orders the Council of Nicea, which gathers leaders from across the now Christian Empire, and they assess, evaluate, and ultimately vote on what constitutes the new testament, and what of the old testament will be useful and allowed into their Bible. They created a political document that was meant to control and codify their version of the Christian religion, and since they had the will and the ability to enforce it, that's the one that crushed all other sects and hung on.

*Whether or not Constantine was a Christian is indeed up for debate (personally I doubt it).
*Constantine did indeed warp Christianity (however not through the Council of Nicea); this eventually gave rise to Catholicism.
*Constantine did not declare Christianity the state religion (he simply granted freedom of worship in the Edict of Milan of 313 AD); it wasn't until 380 AD that Emperor Theodosius published an edict making "Christianity" (really Roman Catholicism by then) the state religion.
*I am aware of all the dates that Constantine had changed that you speak of.
*Christianity existed independently of Roman influence in other parts of the world.
*The Council of Nicea was not involved in canonizing scripture; they made (existing) doctrines official and stated the result in the Nicene Creed...
*...These doctrines would have to be altered or misinterpreted to be used for political purposes. And indeed this has happened many times throughout history.
*Islam was the force that eventually destroyed Christianity in most of the Middle East; Roman Catholicism despite its best efforts has never been able to crush Christianity.

Oh wow, so I challenge your beliefs with history, and you tell me the state is corrupting the church and the facts? But you only have your "facts" BECAUSE OF THE ROMAN STATE!!!! It's fucking hysterical. But I agree with the overall point that politics and religion do corrupt each other and everybody would be better off if the two could stay away from each other but the problem is they can't. Because both cut to the most deeply held and influential of beliefs an individual can hold. They are ideology, and any ideology will always be competitive with other ideologies, that's just the nature of the beast.

So wait, you make fun of me then you agree with me? I'm confused...

You do not possess relevant facts. You do not represent represent history accurately. You are ignorant of the most basic facts about how you're belief system has evolved. You also are not necessarily following the teachings of Christ because Jesus never actually wrote his teachings down so we have no primary source to work from on that. We have only secondary sources (the gospels). It is widely held outside of the church (which has bias) that these are not unimpeachable. Therefore it is YOUR TRUTH because you cannot verify it as "The Truth". You even admitted in the end paragraph I did not quote that you believe this to be the truth so you spread it, which is precisely what I've been saying. You have a belief, you believe it to be true, you believe it's your duty to spread it. But the problem is it is not backed up empirically and is not verifiable outside of if I only use the Christian Church as my source...and they have every reason to tell me they're truth is the only truth.

What makes your sources more relevant than mine; is it because my sources "must be biased?" I can provide you with plenty of reasons why your sources would be biased as well.

Anyway, about the 'Gnostic gospels' (many of which were written centuries after the true Gospels):
Origen who died in 254 AD, an early church father, stated about these 'Gnostic gospels':
"I know a certain gospel which is called "The Gospel According to Thomas"
and a "Gospel according to Matthias," and many others have we read - lest we
should in any way be considered ignorant because of those who imagine they
possess some knowledge if they are acquainted with these. Nevertheless, among
all these we have approved solely what the church has recognized, which is that
only the four gospels should be accepted"

Also, regarding only four Gospels:

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are." - Irenaeus: Against Heresies Book 3.11.8, talking about the four true Gospels (which is evident in the context).

Furthermore there are over 19,000 citations of the four gospels from early church fathers, including (but not restricted to): Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus. All of these people are from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long before the Council of Nicea.

Also (as a side note) the deity of Christ was indeed well established in Christian doctrine before the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died 108), Polycarp (died 155), Justin Martyr (died 165), Irenaeus (died 202), etc... all accepted the deity of Christ.

It was well established long before the Council of Nicea that the four Gospels were scripture. Furthermore these 'Gnostic gospels' were rejected by most of the church fathers.

I say 'most' because the Council of Nicea was established for this very purpose, that is to set the record straight about the false doctrines being perpetuated by these 'Gonstic gospels' and 'Gnostics' who were denying the deity of Christ. In fact the heretical teachings of Arius of Alexandria (known as Arianism) were the direct reason for the calling of the Council of Nicea.

Arius of Alexandria lost his case, the doctrines confirmed in the Council of Nicea were voted on by the 318 bishops convened, only five voted against and of those only two refused to sign.

The existence of such heresies circulating is evidenced even in the Bible in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2.

At 2/4/10 03:37 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Like I said, not a perfect analogy.

Then... why were you... I... ok we'll scrap it then.

Sorry No. You're restricitng the parent-group definition of Christianity or completely disregarding it all together.

Correct.

Which is actually dishonest of you.

That's the point, it is inaccurate and dishonest.

"And it doesn't mean it's inaccurate or dishonest - as it's not attempting to take the place of your more restricted definition."

How can the exact opposite of your point be your point?

That's a little simplistic but yes.

I think you've just proven the better part of the dictionary wrong. Which, ironically enough, validates most any semantic wiggling you want to do.

History is important in understanding the present.

And so is the effectively atemporal - like for instance, a hierarchical classification that relies on current (and forseeably constant) attributes for comparison - rather than a chronoligical relationship entrenched in a subjective and supernatural context.

The point of the historical sequence was that Christianity fulfilled the law of Judaism essentially replacing it.

Jews don't see it that way. And Muslims only kind of see it that way.

It's inaccurate because it's untrue. Catholicism does not hold to the essential teachings of Christ that make up Christianity.

Atleast be honest. It is true, but not in any context you're willing to acknowledge. This is particularly important when you answer to an argument inhabiting the context you refuse to ackowledge, without acknowledging that you're refusing to acknowledge it, to the extent that your answer reads as a direct disagreement.

But what if I'm right, what am I then?

Bigots can't be right?

Objectivity is relative to ones world view.

Do you really not realize how disingenuous that argument is?

Your secular world view is just as corrupted as you see mine as. See, I can play that game too.

Corrupted? Are you just being expressive or are you carrying some baggage here?

Old sacrificial system > Judaism > Christianity
Vs.
Christianity is an entity unto itself that excludes offshoot religions that don't teach truth.

I think those are two completely different things.

Oh... ok. Which one of those am I arguing for again?

My mistake to involve personal feelings in the matter, you must see that as weakness.

No. I involve my personal feelings all the time. I think it's pretty apparent, actually.

The time machine's purpose in this case was to highlight contradictions - potential dishonesty - worming.

Being saved is personal

Yes. A living thesaurus contest. Ok. Here are the rules. I say what something is not, as in "x is not a." Then you reply, without agreement, that "x is [antonym of a]," as if it justifies x being an [antonym of a]. Then I reply, "x is not [synonym of a]." Then you reply, "x is [antonym of synonym of a.... though... I guess you already know the rules.

Would you like to know how to be saved?

I'm going to prove that your argument is right, and guess that one is saved through good deeds and confession. ;)

Cause I'm corrupt, clueless secularist that doesn't know better than to associate you with people who are clearly going to hell.

Us athiests should stop thinking "what would darwin do?" and more like "what would buda do?" because he didnt believe in a higher power either.

At 2/4/10 10:40 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Which is actually dishonest of you.

Well my argument is that this "parent group" definition for Christianity shouldn't exist in the first place because such a definition that includes the like of Catholicism and Mormonism (among others) is disingenuous.

That's the point, it is inaccurate and dishonest.

"And it doesn't mean it's inaccurate or dishonest - as it's not attempting to take the place of your more restricted definition."

How can the exact opposite of your point be your point?

Wait, that was your point... My point was the that it is inaccurate and dishonest, yours was that it doesn't have to be. It's okay, crisis averted, we still disagree. That was a close one.

And so is the effectively atemporal - like for instance, a hierarchical classification that relies on current (and forseeably constant) attributes for comparison - rather than a chronoligical relationship entrenched in a subjective and supernatural context.

I am indeed using a "hierarchical classification that relies on current (and forseeably constant) attributes for comparison" (Though I realize you see it as the second one). In comparison of the attributes of Catholicism to true Christianity we find that Catholicism departs from many fundamental doctrines, even today as well as when it was first started.

If you have truth - and you depart from that truth - you no longer have truth.

I realize that this makes me a bigot (as you pointed out) as to only accept one truth, but on the other hand I didn't realize that there was more than one truth (of course there isn't). From the perspective of looking in on this whole issue from the outside I realize you don't see a difference, you see opinion vs. opinion, faith vs. faith, belief vs. belief. This is not the case however, we have something (Christianity) very original, very much the 'one truth' and then comes along some contrivance(s) that gets associated with it and were supposed to accept that, welcome it in brotherhood, let it share the (once) pure name of Christianity? I think not for they (Catholicism and the like) fall into a category of those who once had the truth but have thence departed to apostasy.

Jude in verse four says:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Atleast be honest. It is true, but not in any context you're willing to acknowledge. This is particularly important when you answer to an argument inhabiting the context you refuse to ackowledge, without acknowledging that you're refusing to acknowledge it, to the extent that your answer reads as a direct disagreement.

You're right, I do refuse to acknowledge it, because it is untrue (from my perspective, but this goes back to what I was just saying above).

Objectivity is relative to ones world view.

Do you really not realize how disingenuous that argument is?

I don't think it is, not that I want to have a debate about this but (again, going back to what I was just saying above) we see the world (and mainly this issue) differently. I am being objective but so are you (though I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong). Everything that I have been trying to do is geared around expressing what I see from my world view but you wont come over and join me to see what I'm talking about... which makes me very sad and lonely :(

Corrupted? Are you just being expressive or are you carrying some baggage here?

Mostly expressive, but I used to hold the same kind of secular would view I'm assuming you have so I guess it's a little bit of both.

Oh... ok. Which one of those am I arguing for again?

I don't think either, but I'm not sure anymore...

No. I involve my personal feelings all the time. I think it's pretty apparent, actually.

The time machine's purpose in this case was to highlight contradictions - potential dishonesty - worming.

Oh, okay. Well I hope to be clearing some of those up as we go on.

Would you like to know how to be saved?

I'm going to prove that your argument is right, and guess that one is saved through good deeds and confession. ;)

Cause I'm corrupt, clueless secularist that doesn't know better than to associate you with people who are clearly going to hell.

lol
I think I should take that as a 'no'... Well I hope you change your mind :)

At 2/5/10 12:53 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Well my argument is that this "parent group" definition for Christianity shouldn't exist in the first place because such a definition that includes the like of Catholicism and Mormonism (among others) is disingenuous.

Sure. It's disingenuous when you don't accept the usage under which it isn't disingenuous - because you want the name to signify something other than the parent-group. To say you want the name to signify something other than the parent-group because it's disingenuous is CIRCULAR. In other words, the dishonesty is produced by ignoring the honesty - motivated by a sense of entitlement..

Now. What is dishonest is passing off your own restricted definition of Christianity as the unimpeachable truth.

Wait, that was your point... My point was the that it is inaccurate and dishonest, yours was that it doesn't have to be. It's okay, crisis averted, we still disagree. That was a close one.

No. I'm saying it's not inherently inaccurate or dishonest. In fact, I'm saying it's inherently honest.

I am indeed using a "hierarchical classification that relies on current (and forseeably constant) attributes for comparison" (Though I realize you see it as the second one).

Really? .... the... fuck.

1. I show you something hierarchical.
2. You refute it with a chronology.
3. I explain that they're two separate contexts.
4. You justify your chronological context with "history is important."
5. I characterize your CHRONOLOGICAL ARGUMENT as "a chronoligical relationship entrenched in a subjective and supernatural context"
6. ... and you decide I'm talking about your "core tenants" argument?

Did you think I was confused? Are you fucking with me?

Just because you've made more than one argument doesn't mean I'm referring to any one of your choosing at any particular time for you to skew off somewhere else. Don't fucking pull this shit again.

In comparison of the attributes of Catholicism to true Christianity we find that Catholicism departs from many fundamental doctrines, even today as well as when it was first started.

If you have truth - and you depart from that truth - you no longer have truth.

That's binary. It's a tad different from a hierarchy.

I realize that this makes me a bigot (as you pointed out) as to only accept one truth

No. That's not what a bigot is, Mr.look-at-how-innocent-my-intentions-ar e. Just goin after the truth, you lil' trooper! *tear* It's like I'm a bad person for trying to steal the truth from you.

From the perspective of looking in on this whole issue from the outside I realize you don't see a difference, you see opinion vs. opinion, faith vs. faith, belief vs. belief. This is not the case however,

"You're right, I do refuse to acknowledge it, because it is untrue (from my perspective, but this goes back to what I was just saying above)."

"Objectivity is relative to ones world view."

That aside, I'm also alittle concerned that you're getting this "opinion vs opinion" vibe from my 'not-mutually-exclusive contexts' argument. Am I concerned accurately or are we just getting into a objective-subjective feedback loop because I mentioned objectivity?

we have something (Christianity) very original, very much the 'one truth' and then comes along some contrivance(s) that gets associated with it and were supposed to accept that, welcome it in brotherhood, let it share the (once) pure name of Christianity?

1. You still don't get this whole 'contextual use' thing.

2. Don't tell me it's about honesty when it's so crystal god damn clear that it's about entitlement.

You're right, I do refuse to acknowledge it, because it is untrue (from my perspective, but this goes back to what I was just saying above).

"I realize you [...] see opinion vs. opinion, faith vs. faith, belief vs. belief. This is not the case"

"It's inaccurate because it's untrue." Was the subjectivity suppose to be implied by the period?

I am being objective but so are you

Claiming something as objective and being objective are two different things. You know... it's like labels.

Jude in verse four says:
"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Like this. This isn't an objective argument.

Everything that I have been trying to do is geared around expressing what I see from my world view but you wont come over and join me to see what I'm talking about... which makes me very sad and lonely :(

Mr Innocent strikes again! I've completely forgotten that you're actually telling people they're wrong.

Mostly expressive, but I used to hold the same kind of secular would view I'm assuming you have so I guess it's a little bit of both.

Yay baggage. You can stow it. :P

I don't think either, but I'm not sure anymore...

Alright then. Take a trip back to when we took a trip back and help me understand what the reply had to do with what you were replying to. ... rhymed...

Oh, okay. Well I hope to be clearing some of those up as we go on.

Not so much clearing up as piling on... exponentially.

I must be getting rusty in these debates.

No one wants to throw a bone to uncle bricky?

At 2/4/10 03:37 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: Objectivity is relative to ones world view.

Uh, no. Sorry. That is actually completely the opposite. Subjectivity relates to personal perspective. Objectivity relates to physical "fact". Postmodern shenanigans and philosophical debates about the possibleness of such a state aside, objectivity, by definition, is unaltered by perspective or "worldview" whatever that might mean in your personal context.

You do realize that debating what version of Christianity is the real one is about as relevant / mature as pointing out flaws between the Harry Potter books and the movies?