Problem with Christianity

[AntiochusIII]

The Orthodox and Catholics were bitter rivals? I find that interesting, could you provide any links?

And yes, it was defensive: the Muslims attacked (and not just around Israel either, but also in the west on the Iberian pennisula) and the Christians had to defend themselves and their faith.

Crazed Rabbit

I guess I shouldn't go to biased websites for the link, so...wikipedia then.

(will my link work?)...

There is also a record about how the last Constantine (X or something...) tried to plead for the help of the West by "reuniting" the two churches, and that results in the alienation between him and his few subjects. Several websites (not biased, historical ones) recorded this.

However, I never heard of any wars between the two sides of the church, as it is clear that the Byzantines were the leaders of the Orthodox and that by the time the two churches broke apart, they were in decline, fighting for their lives against the Seljuks, and later, the Ottomans.

Of course, unless you count the 4th crusade.

Edit: Oh, and the invasion of Iberia (and Southern France) was like...4 or 5 centuries before the First Crusade. In fact, by the time of the First Crusade, Christian Spain already started the Reconquista, by El Cid ;p , and, as far as I know, the pope never really called for an "international" crusade (continental would be better?) in Spain.

[King Henry V]

The Crusade was a response to the closing of the routes of pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Denied access to their religious sites, they decided take the Holy Land by force.

[Roark]

Christianity, like most other religions, are nothing but a powerstructure used to oppress people.

I reject this notion, given the extensive charity work that goes on under the Christian banner. Conveniently ignored?

The church that I was raised in as a youngster never tried to oppress me, nor am I aware of anything like this going on in the mainstream denominations.

Perhaps your knowledge of Christianity is limited to the medieval/Renaissance periods, and to the Catholic church...

The entry of democracy will in the end remove the religions as they will loose power and become outdated.

Again, I don't find this to be accurate. The vast majority of Christian nations have been democratic for some time now...

Church attendance is falling, but I don't see a link to democracy.

[bmolsson]

I reject this notion, given the extensive charity work that goes on under the Christian banner. Conveniently ignored?

The church that I was raised in as a youngster never tried to oppress me, nor am I aware of anything like this going on in the mainstream denominations.

Perhaps your knowledge of Christianity is limited to the medieval/Renaissance periods, and to the Catholic church...

Not at all. Devoted Christians are not always evil, most of them are actually good people. But this doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a religion, which strives for political power and have always done so.

Again, I don't find this to be accurate. The vast majority of Christian nations have been democratic for some time now...

Church attendance is falling, but I don't see a link to democracy.

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.

[Papewaio]

...a religion, which strives for political power and have always done so.

A religion that does not gain political power often finds itself at the mercy of one that has gained power.

Hence there has been a wittling away of virtually all faiths that do not have political clout. Even internal sects will get removed if they fall prey to a stronger ones political moves (Templars).

In the end the more political faiths will increase in frequency while those less fit will die out.

[Roark]

This is really the statement I kinda took issue with, Bmolsson. It is far more dismissive and blinkered than I have come to expect from you.

nothing but a powerstructure used to oppress people

There are many more considerable facets to faith and the religion itself. This is what I would I would have expected from the one-liner atheists that pronounce their "obvious truths" about the universe in many of the other religious threads.

I doubt that Christianity will ever truly die out, even considering the passing of primeval faiths like Shamanism and pantheism.

[Navaros]

If you need to talk anti abortion please do so without quoting something totally irrelevant to what u want to say.

I also find the idea that 'socialists' greatest atribute to be 'abortion' to be a bit....shall i say...non realistic?

I think you really need to see what socialist policy means, you kinda have it all wrong.


I m not gonna go into a theological discussion but, Jesus, having said 'love eachother', and having said ' forgive em ' when they crucified him must have been at least a bit tollerant to sin. Else he d say ' love eachother unless the others are sinners' and ' waste the bloody $%#^&$ and sent their sinful #$%# to hell'

But this kind of idea of an intollerant Jesus proves my point, people just 'shape' religion to fit their ideals.

i was not the first one in this thread to bring up "abortion". another poster attributed Jesus to being a member of a type of group that supports that. in response, i was simply posting the truth of the matter. Jesus would never ever support that sort of murder.

and aside from that, if characterizing many Christians as evil for bad things they have done is fair game, then characterizing secularists for committing an even bigger atrocity should also be fair game

yes, Jesus did say to love each other. however, that is not a free license to sin. Jesus will try to help a sinner, but that does not mean he condones or tolerates the sinner's evil behaviours.

incidentally, the title of this thread is also a misnomer. because the biggest problem with Christianity is when non-Christians who do not understand the doctrine at all try to make definitive statements as if they knew what Jesus represents

[Sigurd]

*Starts wondering if I am on everyone’s ignore list*

I posted a quite provocative post in this thread and no one found it such? No comments?

The question of this thread is Problem with Christianity and I postulated that the real problem is that there should be no Christian organisation today. It ended in the crossover of the 1st and 2nd century.

[Adrian II]

*Starts wondering if I am on everyone’s ignore list*

You're not on my ignore list, on the contrary. We've discussed this before in posts and PM's. But it is really an issue that Christians should address, not outsiders like me. And I'm interested in their answers just like you.

[Roark]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

[Adrian II]

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.

Please elaborate, because to me this isn't obvious at all. How does it apply to the United States, for instance?

[Sigurd]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

It is true I am guilty of not properly quoting my work here in this thread, but this is hardly a hand in assignment. As you duly demonstrated there is a reason why I not always give exact references: that is, the response would be directed against the author and not at his ideas.
Truth to tell: I have many opinions on the subject of religion and have studied it for quite some time now. And it was my ideas to certain subjects that resulted in me getting a book called: When the Lights Went Out, by a friend that happens to be a Mormon. It was quite a surprise in the first place that my friend agreed to many of my views. So far I only have this one book which consists of three studies on the ancient church.

Personally I was a little suspect over his work since he obviously is biased against Mormonism. When I found out that his work agrees with prominent scholars of other faiths and the fact that his work is well referenced and nearly all quoted from sources itself, he wrote himself into my good book. The elephant thing you mention have I not come across myself but sounds more like a real bias against his faith and should not discredit all his work.

[edit]: made corrections to my post #17 in this thread...

[Al Khalifah]

Ah... another slag off the Christians thread.

[bmolsson]

Please elaborate, because to me this isn't obvious at all. How does it apply to the United States, for instance?

US faces a decreased democratic process, where lobby has a far larger power than before. This results in less participation in decisions by the voters. Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.

[Pindar]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:


"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

[Pindar]

You're not on my ignore list, on the contrary. We've discussed this before in posts and PM's. But it is really an issue that Christians should address, not outsiders like me. And I'm interested in their answers just like you.

I think its problematic to argue that Primative Christianity is consistant with what came after: organizational, doctrinal and theological shifts were massvie and obvious.

[Al Khalifah]

Also to note is that US is a democratic republic and not a democracy.

If you're going to split hairs like that, could you please name a true modern democracy?

I've heard no reasonable criticisms of Christianity yet in this thread that I could not also level against many Western nations or indeed some large corporations. I just don't see why people are so threatened by it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why homosexuality is banned by the Catholic Church:
(taken from the New English Bible, published by Oxford Cambridge)

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 10

Surely you know the unjust will never come into the Kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolator, none who are guilty either of adultery or homosexual perversion, no theives or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will posses the Kingdom of God

[Al Khalifah]

Why homosexuality is banned by the Catholic Church

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was a letter from St. Paul of Tarsus to the people of Corinth. Corinth, as was much of Greece at this time was home to 'the Greek homosexuality.' The purpose of this part of the letter was probably to set out, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality was not permitted in the Christian creed. The alleged dating of the letter is AD 57.
Prosecution of homosexuals was common in the early Church, but then again, this was prevalent in many religions of the time and in the following millennia with a few notable exceptions such as the Greek Pantheon. It is worth noting, however, that Bishop Amborse refused to allow Emperor Theodosius to re-enter Rome until he made a public repentance for the massacre of homosexuals in Thessalonica.

[Roark]

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:


"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

You think it's a flaw? Under other cirumcstances I would agree... The elephants example is a drop in the ocean. Prehistoric pygmy mammoth remains are a far cry from domesticated Loxodontas anyway. Nibley's career has been dedicated to writing apologetics for the scriptural farrago that is the Book of Mormon. I understand, and have studied, the proofs that he has painstakingly accumulated and presented over his long career. His writing contains some measure of truth and scholarship, but he is insincere in his methodology and his claims have been lambasted multiple times by worthier scholars. I don't want to get into a prolonged debate about the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Thanks for the link, though.

[bmolsson]

If you're going to split hairs like that, could you please name a true modern democracy?

I would think that Switzerland is the closest today....

[Pindar]

You think it's a flaw?

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

[Roark]

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

I don't think it's pejorative (do you ever get just... exhausted talking like that all the time?). From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

There is no question that Mormonism fits definition (1). There is also no question that it fits definition (3a)--although the members may quibble over the applicability of "obsessive" most outsiders would say that the devotion to Joseph Smith et al is a bit obsessive. Likewise the devotion to the odd temple rituals, the Word of Wisdom, and the Church generally. And as for definition (3b), it also can be said that Mormonism or the Mormon Church is the object of devotion. (Even though Elders will tell you that it is the "Saviour" they are devoted to, I don't buy it. As a practical matter it is the Church organization that is regarded as the saviour and redeemer by most Mormons.)

Definition (2) above is the one that we most often think about when we use the word "cult" in modern times. The word conjures up an image of a group of lunatics chanting zombie-like and blindly following a charismatic leader. We think of cult members as people who are incapable of thinking for themselves and who are prepared to commit any act, no matter how bizarre or destructive, that they are commanded to do by their leader or cult organization. I believe that this definition of cult can encompass a range of organizations - from the somewhat extreme to the very extreme. I believe that Mormonism can be called a cult under this definition, but that it is a the mildest end of the range. Compared to the really screwy cults that many people think of, the Mormon Church is pretty mild. It screws with people's minds a bit, but you can get out of it if you really want to and they won't hunt you down to kill you or kidnap you. The really extreme cults will demand that you fork over everything you own and then become completely dependent on the cult. They demand 10% of gross plus a lot of time and other donations, but they'll let you keep your day job and the punishment for not complying is just occasional dirty looks from the Bishop and being barred from the secret handshake learning center.

So Mormonism is a bit bizarre and can be called a cult. But it should be distinguished from the violent, really extreme cults that most people think of when the word "cult" is used in conversation. Now, if you're talking about the Mormon Church under Brigham Young, that's another story. That was about as extreme as they get. Polygamy, blood atonement, Brigham Young as virtual king...

A quote from a former Mormon who I have had email contact with:

- They psychologically, if not physically, isolate the followers from the rest of society.
- They use min control to make members believe the world is divided between absolute good (the group and its ideology) and absolute evil(all else).
- The group is the "elite"; outsiders are "of the world", "evil", "unenlightened," etc.

So, I've just done what I said I didn't want to do, haha... Are we done?

[bmolsson]

Mormons are pretty convincing and always so correct. The of course they allow polygamy....

[Albino Gorilla]

The problem is religion. Religion is a perpetual dilemma of contradiction.


If there was a hell, then it would be unethical to have children. Why? Because they might go to hell. Don't you love the idea of your children enough not to risk them an eternity of hell? I don't even know them and I would rather not have them than risk damning them to an eterntiy of fiery damnation.
Because it is up to that person wheather they go to hell or not, just like it is their choice to live a sucsseful life or not
If thou shall have no other Gods before me, then what up with the J man?
He is the son of god, and some belive he is the incarnation of god
If thou shalt not make any graven image unto me, then what up with the crucifix?

If Jesus actually died and came back, then why isn't he still hanging around?
He was ressurected and ascended to heaven. He hasn't returned to our world yet.
And if Jesus is God, couldn't he come back any time he wants? So then what is the big deal with the short-term death? Die, come back, die again, come back again, rinse wash repeat.
When he returns many belive the world will end

And if he isn't God, then why are thou putting someone before the big man upstairs?
Not everyone does. Each person has an individual belif in Christianity, of course they adhere to the rules, but in each person there will be slight differences. But look, either he is or he isn't, those who think he is belive he is god, and those who belive is is only the son of god don't put him before god
If he died for our sins wouldn't that mean he actually died? Like really died. If he got to come back, then it isn't much of a sacrifice!
It wasn't a painless death
Omens and portents, myths and legend. No different from our superstitious ancestors. The earth is flat! The stars are gods! The sun is a flaming chariot! Jesus rose from the dead and will come again! Simply believe and you will be given a life of eternal paradise!
Like as was said, many people belived and yet did horrible things. For what they did, despite their belifs, they will not be granted eternal paradise
I believe in monkeys that sling poo. That I can see.

I can't remember who said this, and this isn't exactly how he said it, but having faith, is having belifs in what you can't see

[Albino Gorilla]

There is a direct link between increased secularism and democracy. It's quite obvious actually.

What about Athens?

[Pindar]

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

I see.

I don't think it's pejorative. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

So you believe all uses of the above apply and you don't consider (2) or (3a) as pejorative. That's interesting.

Now I noted you refer to Mormonism as: a mild extremism, a bit bizarre and it screws with people's minds a bit. You then quote a former Mormon who says they isolate followers, use mind control and see outsiders as evil.

(I don't think Mormonsim has ever renounced the principle of polygamy or blood atonement so this would fall into the really extreme camp of cults I take it)

You appear pretty hostile.

Are we done?

It's up to you. Do you feel Mormonism has been properly labeled and marginalized?

[Papewaio]

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

Oh crap my DnD group is a cult. Well maybe only the Chaotic characters.

[Pindar]

Oh crap my DnD group is a cult. Well maybe only the Chaotic characters.

Only if you have former members who say you isolate members, use mind control and see outsiders as evil.

Roll a twenty sided to find out.

[Roark]

I'm not hostile, Pindar. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was having a laugh that you got me talking about it with such minimal effort, despite my original protestations.

Their semi-worship of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al means that, yes, I consider (3a) to be accurate.

Joseph Smith's falsified "translation" of a rubric from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" into the "Book of Abraham", and several other doctrinal farces mean that, yes, I also consider (2) to be true. I did try to qualify this with the fact that I don't consider them to be as bad as some of the other groups out there, but you seem bent on making some point here (I just can't ascertain what it is...)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has recanted physical polygamy and blood atonement, but they can have multiple "spiritual" wives...

Labelled and marginalised? OK, if that's how you see it. Feel free to challenge what I've said, though. I think that you yourself might be gettin' a little snarky here...