Americans believe in pretty much everything

[Lartrak]

Catholicism actually has a mechanism to deal with that, if memory serves. There's some sort of balancing thing that decides where they go. I think the question is why can't we all get that, it's a lot more fair to those growing up in non-Christian families.

[mankrip]

That sounds like the viewpoint of the corrupt catholic church. People do go to hell and there is no purgatory. (...)

I'm glad you sound so sure.

How is Catholicism any more corrupt than any other branch of Christianity? Your perception is simply altered because Catholicism is a big giant and there are fewer big figures to focus on in decentralized protestantism.

He didn't say the Catholic church is more corrupt than the others. He just stated there's corruption in it.

[|darc|]

That sounds like the viewpoint of the corrupt catholic church. People do go to hell and there is no purgatory. (...)

I'm glad you sound so sure.

How is Catholicism any more corrupt than any other branch of Christianity? Your perception is simply altered because Catholicism is a big giant and there are fewer big figures to focus on in decentralized protestantism.

He didn't say the Catholic church is more corrupt than the others. He just stated there's corruption in it.

butters is a Protestant Christian. He's lobbying an attack on Catholicism for corruption. Obviously he's implying that Catholicism is more corrupt the others.

[butters]

I'm glad you sound so sure.

How is Catholicism any more corrupt than any other branch of Christianity? Your perception is simply altered because Catholicism is a big giant and there are fewer big figures to focus on in decentralized protestantism.

I seem to recall a lot of big protestant names outed for doing silly shit, too--let's see, how about having Mr. Swaggert out Jim Bakker for his sexual pursuits, THEN less than a year later he's at a motel with a fucking prostitute? Or let's see, Ted
Haggard, forerunner in the fight against homosexuality, found out to be doing crystal meth and fucking a gay prostitute? Pat Robertson in a gambling racket? Jim Whittington's mail fraud and money laundering?

What do you believe (i.e. NOT WHAT YOU FEEL LIKE STATING AS FACT - WHAT YOU BELIEVE) about the forgiveness of sins? Is there a such thing as being able to repent?

After almost an hour of typing and debating with myself, here's my response to this. I hope that it is sufficient. I doubt I'll post anymore in this thread after this.

Of course I'm sure that God is real. I wouldn't be posting this in a place swarming with vehement atheists if I wasn't absolutely sure of myself. I also know that there's nothing I can do for someone who rejects God's word, but I care enough for you to try. The Bible promises mockery and persecution from non-believers, and guess what I'm seeing here?

Catholicism was corrupted by politics. The church grew too big and its leaders grew too powerful. Humans are greedy, and those with power use it. I also disagree strongly with several of the beliefs of Catholicism, and I can go into that in more detail if you would like me to.

Are there sinners in the church? Of course there are. I'm as much of a sinner as anyone. Anyone calling himself a Christian is admitting to being a sinner and therefore not worthy of eternal life.

As far as forgiveness of sins, that is the whole point of Christianity. The sacrifice of Jesus (Yeshua in the original Greek) after living his life by the Mosaic Law perfectly allows us to accept his death as payment in full for our sins. We do this by repenting and believing in him with our hearts, minds, and souls. Once forgiven, always forgiven. Even believing on the deathbed is sufficient.

As a follow-up to that, I believe that a true believer is sent the spirit of God to mold the person slowly over time into the person that God wants him or her to be. I believed strongly as a child, but I distanced myself from it and started making up excuses not to go to church. The spiritual presence is what drew me back to Christianity after about 10 years as an agnostic. I didn't want to start going back to church and reading the Bible. That was the last thing I wanted to do. I have not been "brainwashed" either; I actually know very few people at my church and prefer to study things on my own.

By the way, I still believe that the "spinning wheels" in Ezekiel sound very similar to the descriptions of UFOs.

Lots of people all over the world believe in God, devil, heaven and such just because they are religious.

Excuse my bluntness, but that's... kind of dumb, you know?

All I can say is you better be right when you die.

Isn't God all-forgiving? I think if you were faced with going to hell you'd be truly sorry. Then God would forgive you.

That sounds like the viewpoint of the corrupt catholic church. People do go to hell and there is no purgatory. Because God is just, he can't let those who violate his law enter heaven. You're going to be judged whether or not you believe in God.

edit: I feel bad about making such a negative post without posting about how you can be redeemed from the judgment you deserve. You can find out much more at http://www.needhim.org

So suppose there was a distant group of natives somewhere that has never had contact with missionaries. They don't know of Jesus. They're going to be judged whether they believe or not (they don't) and because God is just and can't let those who violate his laws enter heaven, then they all go to hell.

Doesn't sound too just to me.

Big gray area there, and no human has the answer to that. If someone had no knowledge of the law or was incapable of understanding it, most Christians assume that God will have mercy. You can't reject that which you don't know.

[Covar]

As a Catholic, I see no reason to get upset with what butters said. After all, the reason there are Protestant Religions is largely due to the horrible corruption in the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Reformation. I'd like to think the church has gotten much better since then, but with an organization as large as the Catholic Church there will always be problems.

As for some of these questions, they tend to be a little beyond my understanding. I just try and live a good life, and trust that God has it all sorted out. He is God after all, I'm sure he has a fair system. If you must try and get answers, might i suggest going to a church one day and asking a priest (once again, catholic, emphasis on priest). I'm sure they could answer any questions you have much better than me.

[|darc|]

Honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering, I have had this same argument three thousand times before...

Of course I'm sure that God is real. I wouldn't be posting this in a place swarming with vehement atheists if I wasn't absolutely sure of myself. I also know that there's nothing I can do for someone who rejects God's word, but I care enough for you to try.

How are you sure? A response of "Just look around and see all the great things that exist, it must have been a deity that created them" is not a sufficient answer. I don't know why so many Christians choose this as a defense. That's theism or deism, not Christianity. The existence of a god does not entail the entire Bible being true.

The Bible promises mockery and persecution from non-believers, and guess what I'm seeing here?

How is that even relevant? Of course the Bible promises mockery and persecution from non-believers. Anyone trying to convince anyone else of anything is going to encounter skeptics. Just because the Bible says that doesn't mean you should take a "See! It is right, after all!" attitude.

Catholicism was corrupted by politics. The church grew too big and its leaders grew too powerful. Humans are greedy, and those with power use it.

Those who have power from the bottom to the top abuse it. That includes small protestant churches. That includes big Catholic churches. I might also remind you that most of the Christians in government are protestant and there's tons of corruption there.

I also disagree strongly with several of the beliefs of Catholicism, and I can go into that in more detail if you would like me to.

Having been a devout Catholic myself until about eighth grade when I grew a brain, I really don't understand the protestant hate against Catholics in America. To me, it just seems to be born out of needing another Emmanuel Goldstein to hate: communists and terr'ists for "evil people," and Catholics for "misguided Christians."

Are there sinners in the church? Of course there are. I'm as much of a sinner as anyone. Anyone calling himself a Christian is admitting to being a sinner and therefore not worthy of eternal life.

Yes, yes, I know, everyone sins. I was raised a Christian. I know the religion in and out. What I'm talking about is not simple indulgences, I'm talking about meth and hookers.

As far as forgiveness of sins, that is the whole point of Christianity. The sacrifice of Jesus (Yeshua in the original Greek) after living his life by the Mosaic Law perfectly allows us to accept his death as payment in full for our sins. We do this by repenting and believing in him with our hearts, minds, and souls. Once forgiven, always forgiven. Even believing on the deathbed is sufficient.

Thanks for letting me know Jesus's name in Greek... I didn't know that, as I haven't taken two semesters of Ancient Greek and even translated parts of the Bible.

Even on the deathbed? So basically God wants to be all tricky and not let you decide whether you believe once you go to the afterlife?

As a follow-up to that, I believe that a true believer is sent the spirit of God to mold the person slowly over time into the person that God wants him or her to be. I believed strongly as a child, but I distanced myself from it and started making up excuses not to go to church. The spiritual presence is what drew me back to Christianity after about 10 years as an agnostic. I didn't want to start going back to church and reading the Bible. That was the last thing I wanted to do. I have not been "brainwashed" either; I actually know very few people at my church and prefer to study things on my own.

Of course, no one who is brainwashed freely admits they are. Oh, I should write a book about atheism and put that "Christians are wrong. They'll say they're not brainwashed." and that automatically makes me right!

Big gray area there, and no human has the answer to that. If someone had no knowledge of the law or was incapable of understanding it, most Christians assume that God will have mercy. You can't reject that which you don't know.

Why is God notably merciful in this case? You seem to think I and other atheists "reject" God. There's strong atheism and weak atheism; the former denies that there is a god while the latter is a lack of belief. While I cannot speak for other atheists on this board and I may make plenty of jokes denying the existence of God, I don't.

I don't consider myself a sinner beyond the amount you would consider yourself. The only sin I commit in the eyes of Christianity that you don't would be the lack of belief in God. If I live a virtuous life, but I lack a belief in God, how does this make me any different than those people? Just because someone told me about it and I didn't agree?

God really is an asshole if he damns virtuous non-believers to be eternally tortured in hell. That's especially non-virtuous of him... in fact, he seems to be a bit of a hypocrite, as that doesn't fall in line with what Jesus (a person for whose teachings I have great respect) taught at all.

[Synlor]

As an atheist I don't believe in following a religion personally, but I do recognize the benefits it provides to society. And along those lines, Christianity in particular has a great message that if actually followed and not taken too far, it will help society advance. The one thing I do not understand though, is the protestant movement. While the reformation was definitely necessary, almost all of Martin Luther's ideas have been incorporated into the Catholic church. The Catholic church was definitely corrupt at the time, and may still be today, but I think one could successfully argue it is hardly as corrupt as the dark ages.

The other major sect to leave the church during the reformation was the Church of England. This is a religion based on its leader wanting to have a divorce. How can that organization deserve anymore respect than the Catholic church? Most churches today are now started by an individual, or a group of people who just decide they disagree with their current sect, so they split off. I have a very difficult time understanding how one can follow a sect of Christianity that was started just by someone annoyed with how it was done before.

As I said before, the Catholic church has been very corrupted, but I do believe that the vast majority of it today is out to do good. If you are a follower of Christ, why would you follow a sect started by a human because he disagreed instead of the church that Jesus himself started and gave authority to. Martin Luther had many great points, and the Catholic church finally recognized most of them and incorporated it during the second vatican council in the 1950s. Jesus himself gave authority to Peter as the cornerstone of his church, and the Pope can be drawn in a line from that original leader. The Catholic church is apostolic, as in its the church that the apostles formed after Jesus' death. No other Christian church can claim that in all honesty.

If one chooses to follow a sect of Christianity, why would he or she choose to follow a church created by a man (or woman) instead of following the church God started via Jesus?

[|darc|]

If one chooses to follow a sect of Christianity, why would he or she choose to follow a church created by a man (or woman) instead of following the church God started via Jesus?

Whether or not the Catholic church is the "real" church is arguable. You really have to understand late first millennium and medieval European history in order to truly understand the church's evolution. I took a semester of Byzantine history, and basically the entire history of Byzantium is fighting off enemies in the East, brainwashing other nations into allies through conversion, and bickering between the East and West about who is really right about Christianity. The East and West were one time one unified church. When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, they moved their capital from Rome, Italy to Constantinople, Greece. Because of Roman tradition, the Pope was put in Rome, but did not hold such great power as we regard Popes having today. There were four patriarchs in different locations as well. The Byzantine government was really the head of Christianity (in the hierarchy the emperor was the highest human being), but in order to codify religious law they needed input from the Pope and patriarchs. In the early days of Christianity, there was very little strict doctrine--anything went, really. Over time, because of politics, different ways of worship were outlawed and those who followed them were exterminated. Keep in mind this is a really ridiculous way to make religious belief, basically creating a 'burn the witch' sort of attitude against your political enemies' way of worship in favor of your own. The leaders got together and wrote what they thought was the truth and ended anything that they didn't agree with. Because Europe descended into the dark ages, there became less communication between the East and West in Europe, and Pope Leo IX seized power and broke away from the East (the great schism), and the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman empire were pretty much enemies. Throughout the centuries that followed, many times they got together and tried to unify, offering each other terms ("we'll help defend you against eastern invaders if you edit your church documents to say 'and the son'"--again, a HORRIBLE way to make doctrine), sometimes agreeing and backing out on those terms once they reaped the benefits. The only reason why the Pope never became a leader of a nation of Rome is because at that time Rome had fallen and Italy and the surround area was always just a battle ground between many invading barbarian tribes. The Pope did give backing to Charlemagne and helped create various incarnations of Holy Roman Empire in the West, which didn't even include Rome at all.

So basically, there are many ways to interpret who follows the "real" Christianity descended from Christ. Is it the Roman Catholic church in Rome? Is it the Eastern Roman Orthodox church (they don't call themselves Rome anymore, though)? Is it one of the different beliefs that were killed off early on through corrupt political methods? Is it protestantism, which tried to go back to what Christianity might have originally been?

Basically, any Christian doctrine that exists today resembles NOTHING that Christianity ever was at the time of Christ. It has all been adulterated so much through politics and corruption that it's all bullshit. That includes protestantism--yes, protestantism tried to eliminate stuff like that but it's all still based on the original doctrine set by councils in the Eastern Roman empire.

So to address your suggestion that the Catholic church might be anything like what Christ originally passed on: definitely not. From the second Christ died there were thousands of ways to interpret his teachings and how we should follow him. What we see today in Catholicism is those who believed the thousands minus one other ideas slain. While the Church of England obviously never split for honorable reasons, protestants sects who split for one or several ideas split because it's just another interpretation among many.

Simply put, Christ never passed down a definitive doctrine. There are just many people who claim to be the ones who have it.



As a side note, I wish people would take Byzantine history. My Byzantine history class is easily the biggest experience I've ever had in a class. There is so much history of the church and of Europe in medieval European history, especially in Byzantium, the only real nation for most of the time in the period. It's just way, way overlooked for being such an amazingly important part of history in everything we do.

[Ex-Cyber]

Of course I'm sure that God is real. I wouldn't be posting this in a place swarming with vehement atheists if I wasn't absolutely sure of myself.

"Vehement atheists"? What about ordinary skepticism? Why should I believe in the Christian explanation of God any more than I believe in the incredible doctrine of any other religion? Technically I consider myself agnostic, but many people seem to have a very narrow, Pascal's Wager sort of idea of what "agnostic" means, so I sometimes say that I'm atheist, as Russell explains quite well:

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

I have yet to see an argument for any religion that really addresses this viewpoint.

[Synlor]

While I certainly do not have as great as a background on the eastern church as you do darc, its my understanding now that most various eastern orthodox churches are in union with the modern Roman Catholic Church, despite some discrepancies in exact doctrine. They hold the pope not as the leader of the whole church but rather just another bishop. Regardless of that, my point was if you are going to follow Christ, it doesn't make sense to follow a church that can provide some evidence towards the original savior (even if there isn't exact proof) rather than a random church started by some random guy. The various churches may be corrupt, but I'd rather trust the organization that has strong roots to the apostles simply because the foundation is stronger. It is very easy for a protestant church to become corrupt simply because the foundation is based on some random person disagreeing. I realize that the last statement is more of a gut feeling than something that can be shown by evidence, but thats just my intuition.

[|darc|]

While I certainly do not have as great as a background on the eastern church as you do darc, its my understanding now that most various eastern orthodox churches are in union with the modern Roman Catholic Church, despite some discrepancies in exact doctrine.

No, they are not in union, and they never will be. A "union" implies that they have become one again, opposed to the Great Schism. There isn't any more hostility, but they are certainly not united.

They hold the pope not as the leader of the whole church but rather just another bishop.

I don't think any church besides the Roman Catholic church has the Pope in any position of power. They may greatly respect him as a fellow Christian, but he isn't in any position within those churchs.

Regardless of that, my point was if you are going to follow Christ, it doesn't make sense to follow a church that can provide some evidence towards the original savior (even if there isn't exact proof) rather than a random church started by some random guy. The various churches may be corrupt, but I'd rather trust the organization that has strong roots to the apostles simply because the foundation is stronger.

I do understand your point, and your feelings are valid, but they aren't possible to apply. If you are going to follow Christ, you should pick up a Bible--the only remaining part of Christ there is to follow--and read it and interpret it yourself. Every church that exists has wildly evolved so much over the last 2000 years that there is nothing (absolutely nothing) that resembles anything that Christ had set up.

A lot of churches are splits, not entirely new churches--how do you decide which one is "truly" the church? They all trace back to the apostles.

It is very easy for a protestant church to become corrupt simply because the foundation is based on some random person disagreeing. I realize that the last statement is more of a gut feeling than something that can be shown by evidence, but thats just my intuition.

And the Catholic church is easier to become corrupt because it's a big target with a big following--would a corrupt person want to be the King of the largest group of people in the world or create a new group of less than 1,000 people? Protestant churches are often founded out of passion, not a disagreement (yes, the Church of England was created for stupid reasons, but such things don't happen nowadays).

[Synlor]

There are about 20 to 30 Eastern Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Roman Catholic church. I know that for a fact, one can receive communion in any of those churches and it is still valid. Like I said, they recognize the pope as just another bishop, of equal ranking as a bishop in that sect. I just feel that any catholic church, whether it is roman or eastern, has more validity than the countless protestant churches, but that is just my own opinion on the matter.

If you are going to buy into the catholicism belief, the church still represents Jesus because he gave the apostles, in particular Peter, all those powers and such and the Holy Spirt has been there to guide it all along. There is a biblical basis for the church's authority, and from the bible they have built Tradition that was guided by the holy spirit that still exists today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches

If you want me to pull up a source beside wikipedia I have some other, more factual ones but that page gives a pretty good overview.

Anyways, they all seem pretty crazy to me. I personally feel that Jesus was a pretty great guy, had some good ideas and such, but he never was the son of god. It was only his followers who made it into the savior when they wrote (mind you the timespan between Jesus' death and the writing of the gospels is quite a few years) and ever since then been twisted into what we have today.

[|darc|]

There are about 20 to 30 Eastern Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Roman Catholic church. I know that for a fact, one can receive communion in any of those churches and it is still valid. Like I said, they recognize the pope as just another bishop, of equal ranking as a bishop in that sect. I just feel that any catholic church, whether it is roman or eastern, has more validity than the countless protestant churches, but that is just my own opinion on the matter.

I see several contradictory Wikipedia entries on what truly constitutes "full communion," but as far as I know, full communion is more like an acknowledgement of the other churches' existence and a respect that the other churches' members are still part of the same religion. It does not, however, constitute a full union in the pre-Great Schism sense. There are still large fundamental doctrinal and administrative differences between the different churches.

If you are going to buy into the catholicism belief, the church still represents Jesus because he gave the apostles, in particular Peter, all those powers and such and the Holy Spirt has been there to guide it all along. There is a biblical basis for the church's authority, and from the bible they have built Tradition that was guided by the holy spirit that still exists today.

And which church would this be? There are many that hold this claim.

There is also a question of whether or not God has changed his mind. According to Christian belief, he did with Christ's coming. The same argument you make for Roman Catholicism can also be made for Judaism.

[Synlor]

My understanding of the full communion is if I were a roman catholic, I could attend a service within any of those churches and still be a full participant. If I were to go to a protestant service, the church says I shouldn't receive their eucharist as it is held within a different belief. And this goes both ways, they can attend another sect of catholicism and still be full participants. You are correct in the sense that they may have differing doctrinal issues, but they are just as catholic as a roman catholic is.

So ya, my statement refers to any one of these catholic churches as being more legitimate than a protestant church. And I really do want to clarify this is my own personal opinion and has no bearings in solid fact that a catholic church is more legitimate than a protestant.

Could you elaborate on what you mean in that God changed his mind with Christ's coming? I've never heard that claim before and I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

[toastman]

How do you reconcile all of that with the fact that you must accept Genesis as the literal truth if you believe in Jesus's sacrifice?

Jesus died to absolve us of original sin. Original sin was committed by Adam and Eve. By induction, Genesis must be true if Jesus died for our sins.

Secondly, Jesus is the Son, and also the Father, not to mention the Spirit as well. So here is another tangle. If Jesus is God, then why does God need to sacrifice himself to himself to forgive us of some rule of his we broke. Why not just say "It's cool guys." Also, if Jesus knows that he is the Son (even if he isn't God Himself), then what kind of sacrifice is it? "Jeez, I can stay here where a bunch of haters are cramping my style, OR I can martyr myself and go chill with Pops in Heaven for all eternity. Yeah, it's going to be a shitty three days, but c'mon."
I don't really see the sacrifice there.

Finally, with all of the borrowing that the Church did to get acceptance of its religion, it really seems more like we just labeled everything the same, not that everyone really believes the same thing. I mean, now we accept it all, but just look at all of our holidays. Most of them have Pagan origins. And even the Jesus Christ story shares a lot in common with contemporary Messiah myths. Jesus was not unique.

[Kevin Beckman]

How do you reconcile all of that with the fact that you must accept Genesis as the literal truth if you believe in Jesus's sacrifice?

No, you don't. If you did then you'd have to believe that the world was created twice.

Jesus died to absolve us of original sin. Original sin was committed by Adam and Eve. By induction, Genesis must be true if Jesus died for our sins.

Jesus died to absolve us from all sins. Also if you honestly believe that all men carry the original sin then it would have been impossible for Jesus to absolve our sins.

Secondly, Jesus is the Son, and also the Father, not to mention the Spirit as well. So here is another tangle.

The trinity is the doctorine of man. It was a political tool used exclude a group of 'christians'.

[toastman]

How do you reconcile all of that with the fact that you must accept Genesis as the literal truth if you believe in Jesus's sacrifice?

No, you don't. If you did then you'd have to believe that the world was created twice.

You also believe in a magic sky fairy who grants wishes. Double creation of the world isn't that far off. (Also how? Genesis is the creation story.)

Jesus died to absolve us of original sin. Original sin was committed by Adam and Eve. By induction, Genesis must be true if Jesus died for our sins.

Jesus died to absolve us from all sins. Also if you honestly believe that all men carry the original sin then it would have been impossible for Jesus to absolve our sins.

As an atheist, I don't believe in your holy sin to begin with. Also, Jesus died to restore our communion with God. Which we lost when Adam committed original sin. It's right there in the Bible.

Secondly, Jesus is the Son, and also the Father, not to mention the Spirit as well. So here is another tangle.

The trinity is the doctorine of man. It was a political tool used exclude a group of 'christians'.

Only if you are Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. If you are Catholic or any brand of Lutherian/Protestant, then the Trinity is the doctrine of divinity.

But of course, if you want to argue along the lines of Mormon faith, then we might as well discuss Buddhism for the relevance it has in a discussion about Catholicism.

[Lartrak]

You also believe in a magic sky fairy who grants wishes. Double creation of the world isn't that far off. (Also how? Genesis is the creation story.)

[/quote]

There are two different creation accounts in Genesis. In one, man and woman are made at the same time. The other is the more familiar one most talk about.