|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Buz wrote:
quote: Um, what? Buz, as someone who believes Christian scriptures are important, you must be aware of the many sacred scriptures that also contain the same name (YHWH). Those include the Jewish writings that didn't end up in the Christian canon, as well as the many early Christian and other writings (such as the Gnostics) that claim to be from YHWH. And what is your view on the books like maccabbees, or others that are in the Catholic Bible and not the Protestant Bible? By what you wrote above, I'd have to conclude that you consider them to be correct. If you are going to claim that having that name in them is sufficient for inerrancy, they you are swallowing most of the various early Christianities. If you are going to reject them based on reason, then please don't use the bare presence of the name YHWH as evidence of anything. Thanks! Edited by Equinox, : No reason given. -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Nemesis wrote:
quote: No, parents aren’t. The difference is that fundamentalists often work very hard to isolate their kids from non-fundamentalist sources of information. Raising a kid with values is good parenting, censoring the world from them is brainwashing. Moderate parents (Christian and non-Christian) will encourage their kids to investigate all spiritual paths, to think for themselves, to critically question all ideas using reason and evidence. Sure, they may introduce their own values to the kids first, and they may raise the kids with traditions consistent with their religion and not others. However, The child is always taught to investigate and question, and that nothing is taboo to question. For instance, my kids are being raised with my Native American and Pagan celebrations of the wheel of the year (the solstices, equinoxes, and their thermal equivalents), the names of the moons (such as the Snow moon for February), and my science-based view of the universe. They are also being taught the tools of critical thought, and will be encouraged to read, think, and investigate on their own. They are guaranteed my love, even if they decide to reject the values they’ve been taught (like the universal value of all people), and become, say, KKK members. They are being taught about many religions, like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on, all with honest discussions of their good and potential bad points, and with respect for all members of these religions. That includes visiting their worship services. Contrast that with the situation in many fundamentalist groups. Members (especially kids, but adults too) are pressured to only be exposed to Christian (and only the right kind of Christian) information sources. That includes listening to Christian radio, censoring or avoiding “heretical” or “worldly” books, not going to worship services of other faiths, etc. All of this is supported by the New Testament, which even orders that Christians aren’t supposed to let the wrong kind of Christian into their homes (2Jn 1:11), among other NT verses (like not to be “unequally yoked”, or to be “separate from unbelievers” etc.). Brainwashing can include implicit or explicit threats to revoke love and community if the person strays from the faith. See the difference? Both can be (and are) done in non-Christian as well as in Christian homes. However, it seems awfully more common in fundamentalist homes than in secular homes. This is part of the reason why we so often see people on boards like this who did look around and suddenly found out that their knowledge had giant holes in it due to Christian brainwashing. I don’t very often come across the opposite - Americans, secular or not, who don’t understand that Christianity exists, or that, say, Jesus is said to have died for our sins, or some such core tenet of Christianity. Do we agree that there is a difference between “teaching kids values”, and isolating them from critical thinking and from learning about other views? Have a fun weekend- -Equinox -Equinox _ _ _ ___ _ _ _You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims... (Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan - Naturalistic Paganism Home)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
As a Catholic, I was taught that there is no salvation outside the (Roman Catholic) church, except in cases of “invincible ignorance” - people who don’t know about the Catholic church. In addition, I know that this idea goes back to the 4th century with Augustine, who, along with the rest of the church, believed that sacraments were needed for salvation, and that sacraments were only proper if done by the official priest. Augustine writes clearly about this because he writes against the Donatist “heresy” (though he was originally a Donatist who converted to RCC). The donatists had said that corrupt priests couldn’t give valid sacraments. Because there were plenty of corrupt priests even back in the 4th century, the donatists seceded from the Catholic church, thus putting them out of the hierarchy, and so Augustine pointed out that their sacraments were invalid, and didn’t bring salvation.
This view of the sacraments is still RCC doctrine today: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sacraments The “invincible ignorance” loophole is used to counter the claim that condemning people who never heard of Christianity to Hell is cruel. Thus, people who never heard are possibly, sometimes, perhaps spared if that’s what God wants, since we can’t know what God will do. In fact, this loophole is said to be possible in an extreme case where a protestant is raised to hate the RCC, and never learns otherwise. However, Catholic doctrine is clear that it is the one true church and all other churches/faiths cannot get you salvation. From herehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm , we have: quote: So Anastasia is right that at least some non-Catholics may still be saved (if God wills it) according to Catholic doctrine, though not if they know about the Roman Catholic church and stay outside of it. RCC doctrine strongly denies that any spirituality, no matter how nice and good, can win your salvation. Some more quotes are here: Catholic Answers (What the Early Church Believed: Salvation Outside the Church | Catholic Answers ) Individual Catholics may often try to spin it one way or the other (for instance, trying to either eliminate the “invincible ignorance” loophole on one hand or trying to expand it to try to save those who do know of the Catholic church from hell), but the bottom line is the same - except for invincible ignorance of the Catholic church, only Catholics are saved. Oh, and I was raised Catholic. I indeed was taught to accept on faith the church’s doctrine without critical thought. Strangely, I was taught critical thought, and taught to apply it to all areas of my life EXCEPT religion. That was put in a “question free box”. I was outright told that if I heard anyone question a faith tenet, that right then “your faith should rise up” to stop that line of thought. Oh well. I guess I found out that the box was there for a reason. And, yes, those of us living in the US and Europe do have a very skewed view of Catholicism. We see a lot of liberal/moderate Catholics, including priests. This is very different from the majority of Catholics, who are closer to what we’d call fundamentalist. The RCC knows this, that’s why they selected a pretty much fundamentalist pope (Ratzinger). The Catholic bishops who preach against allowing condoms to be given out in Africa are more typical of where the worldwide Catholic church is. But, most of us open-minded westerners don’t know that, and keep pumping money into the Catholic church. The same goes for the Anglican communion - which also is more moderate (even liberal) in the US, but what we would call fundamentalist in most of it’s churches worldwide. Both churches get a lot of their money from the wealthy US and Europe, to support fundamentalist activities elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anastasia wrote (about the RCC doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the RCC except for invincible ignorance):
quote: I agree. That’s the whole point to most RCC doctrines. They are purposefully contradictory because that is what works best to keep people in the church. I don’t think someone thought “hey, if I make this contradictory, it’ll keep people in the church” - no, instead I think that these contradictory statements were selected for, and hence are with us today. There are tons of examples. Here are some: Do unbaptized babies go to hell?Is Jesus a man, or a God? Does 3=1? Are the sacraments needed? Do people have free will, or is God omnipotent? It’s easy to see how some of these evolved: Think of a dozen forms of Christianity competing in the 2nd century. They all have different scriptures, different numbers of gods, different everything. Say that Church E has a view that Jesus was a man, that Church G that Jesus was a god, and Church R that he was both somehow. Now they compete for converts. When E attacks G, saying “your view is wrong”, G can only attack back, since their views are clear and clearly disagree. Since E and G are attacking each other, they both suffer from the exchange. E can’t attack R very well, because R agrees that Jesus was a man. R is similarly safe from G. R, on the other hand, can attack either, saying their view is incomplete. R defends their own nonsensical position by saying that “it’s a divine mystery, beyond human comprehension”. Politically, R’s stance has even more benefits. When addressing a crowd sympathetic to E and hostile to G, R can emphasize Jesus’ human qualities, and win converts. When addressing a crowd (or a person) sympathetic to G and hostile to E, emphasize Christ’s divine qualities. Simply say whichever half is needed to win the convert, since a contradictory stance says both, so you aren't lying. From the example above, it’s no surprise that whatever church happens to win after the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you can be sure it’ll have a contradictory view of Jesus’ nature, just as you can be sure that after both vascular and non-vascular plant compete on land, after a while vascular plants will be dominant - they just compete better. The same goes for the stance that “there is no salvation outside of the Church except for invincible ignorance”. If someone is a loving person, the RCC can emphasize that some non-Catholics can be saved anyway. This works well to keep people like you (Anastasia) contributing time and money. For others, the RCC can refer back to the first part “there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church” - this is done for people considering leaving, for Catholics wondering if they should baptize their kid or send him to Catholic school, or for people wondering if it’s good to evangelize in third world countries. The contradictory stance has been selected for over the past 1800 years, because that’s what works - just like how a 4-chambered heart has been selected for, because that’s what works. Anastasia wrote
quote: That would be nice, but it’s not what the doctrine says. Here is a cut-and-paste from the RCC doctrine, which I linked to in my last post:
quote: See, it doesn’t matter how good you are. Goodness is irrelevant, according to both Paul and the RCC. What matters is: 1. Are you a member of the RCC?, and if not, then 2. Are you ignorant of the church? If not, then there is no way to avoid damnation. That’s it. People like Gandhi, or Anne Frank, who certainly knew of the RCC and of the Bible, and still were not Catholic, go to hell for eternal torture according to RCC doctrine. To feel better, I advise asking a priest if non-Catholics can still be saved, and he’ll go on for a while about how some non-Catholics are indeed saved, and since he won’t mention invincible ignorance, he’ll allow you to think that the Catholic God is kind and nice, allowing nice people to be saved even if they aren’t Catholic or ignorant, and after awhile you’ll feel fine again - just don’t read the Bible too much. That works for my relatives - I come from a big, and moderate/liberal, Catholic family. Seriously though, I’m glad you wish the best for all good people - I do too. That’s more important than doctrine anyway. Have a fun day- -Equinox Edited by Equinox, : No reason given. Edited by Equinox, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Truthlover wrote (about there being competition between Christianities in the 2nd cent.)
quote: I think they did, based on surviving documents. I mentioned Christology, for which we have documents accurately dated to the first and second centuries with different Christianities debating Christology (some examples are Paul’s letters, and the gospel of truth, etc. many are available here Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers). My reading of the evidence we have shows that there were many Christianities from as far back as we have any writings, and that there were always many until they were outlawed and eradicated in the 5th century.
quote: I’m not sure we disagree here. I’m saying that there was significant disagreement among different Christianities in the 2nd century. Epiphanius describes literally dozens of other Christianities, (he’s writing in the 4th century), but others, such as Paul, Ignatius, Polycarp, Iraneaus, and Tertullian describe many of them in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries as well. Many of these Christianities were indeed kinds of Gnostics, though many weren’t. And of course, each of the 80 "heresies" that Epiphanius describes is not a completely separate Christianity, but I only mentioned there being “a dozen forms”, (probably an underestimate), not the full 80 that Epiphanius describes. It’s also true that because Epiphanius is known to exaggerate or otherwise be unreliable, that claiming a full 80 may be too much. The evidence we have, both in writings and in archeological evidence suggests that non-orthodox Christianities were very common from the start, and that the orthodox probably only became a majority as late as the late 3rd or 4th century. For instance, we have about as much early archeological evidence for the Gospel of Peter (which has a Separationist Christology) as we do of the Gospel of Mark. In fact, I’m not sure a strong case can be made for the idea that the orthodox Christianity which won in the end was the first Christianity, or that it had a majority before the mid-second century.
quote: Sure they would. They say that Jesus is God, not man. One of them talking with say, an Ebionite, who sees Jesus as man, not God, would disagree with him, and the two would then argue. Just as today we often can see a Catholic arguing with a Baptist, over much smaller points than Christology. With all these groups clearly present early on, I’m not sure why you don’t think the issue came up until the 4th century. I agree that the issue persisted to the 4th century, and could be thought of as “coming up again”, due to a vocal proponent of the idea (Arius), but it wasn’t a new idea that Arius came up with on his own.
quote: Well, no, but that’s like saying that the Missouri synod of the Lutheran church doesn’t have denominations within it in 2007. Sure it doesn’t, but there are plenty of other denominations around in 2007, just as there were plenty of denominations at all times in the 350 years before the 5th century.
quote: Ah, are we talking about the same groups? The Ebionites were practically the opposite of many of the Gnostic groups, with the RCC having features of both. Saying that the Ebionites were like the Gnostics seems just incorrect, other than the fact that they were both Christian.
quote: They were pretty different by the 2nd century, but you can certainly have debate between religions (see my mention of Catholic vs. Baptist above). Plus, Gnostics weren’t only separate from the RCC. Some scholars have suggested that many 2nd century Gnostics stayed within RCC congregations, and simply interpreted the services and liturgies figuratively, like some Christians do today, except even more in that direction.
quote:Thank you. It’s not my original idea though. It comes up often in scholarly work on early Christianity. quote: It's how you look at it. Each Christian thinks that changing it to his way is really just "going back to apostolic tradition". Marcion, when cutting out parts of Luke, thought he was returning it to its original, uncorrupted form. Since most of these different Christianities claimed to be apostolic (who wouldn’t?), “following apostolic tradition” included saying that your Christianity was right and the others were wrong, whether you were Gnostic, Sabellian, Montanist, or whatever. For starters in learning about early Christianity, the course from the teaching company here From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity is a good place to start, and can be listened to during your daily commute. Of course, as with all sources, go back to the data, compare, think, etc. Overall, it sounds like we have different ideas of the Christian world from 40 to 400 CE. We can discuss it more, as time permits. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that many Christianties sprang up early on, that the current orthodox Christianity was a minority, and only partially formed then, and that over the centuries that form won out, and gradually became the form we recognize today in the process of that competition. My view is based on the writings we have, on what scholars say, and on logic. If that is your base as well, we can have a good discussion. I’d guess that you’ve already read quite a bit on all this, but if you are interested in some various views, several good scholarly authors are listed at Historical Jesus Theories. Yes, they disagree, so critical comparison is needed.
quote: OK, your quote above is a concern to me. It is controversial to assert that Paul wrote Ephesians. As you probably know, it’s a Deutero-pauline, and my weighing of the evidence suggests that Paul didn’t write it. If you feel that the Bible is inerrant, please let me know so as to save us both a lot of time.
quote: The difference is what is a “necessary” and what is a “sufficient” condition for salvation. The RCC says that you must be in the RCC (other than the ignorance loophole), and further that even if you are in, you must do some works. I’m not sure we disagree here. Anastasia, I’ll respond to your post next week, I’m out of time until then. Have a fun weekend everyone- -Equinox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Truthlover wrote:
quote: Oh! Sorry for misreading you. Hmm. I agree, at least in many cases. Gnostic Christianity covers many different and contradictory groups. The Ebionites would certainly be closer to the Orthodox than the farther groups - but perhaps not for the closer ones, especially those within the Orthodox churches. It’s kinda an unresolvable discussion, since some individual Christians were no doubt just about anywhere on the spectrum from Ebionite to Gnostic one would choose, and many of those individuals would be in orthodox and Gnostic churches at different times and such. We can’t even go to the church level and look at “official doctrine”, because the “official doctrine” on many issues was still being formed.
quote: I agree. We could use the term you used, “orthodox”? Though that is biased from the start, since each group considered itself “orthodox”, and considered the other groups to be “heretics”. Whatever group had won would be called “orthodox” today, so in a second century context, “Orthodox” doesn’t seem to work. Even more so, the doctrines that would win weren’t even fully worked out, so the doctrinal ancestors of the orthodox victors of the 5th century espoused some views that would be later labeled as heretical, so calling them “Orthodox” is openly calling people who hold some views that are heretical today the “Orthodox”. “Pre-Orthodox” maybe? Primitive Orthodox? I’ve read some scholars who use “Proto-Orthodox”. PO? Hmm. That makes me think of “Purchase Order”. Maybe I’m working too much . . And of course, all of the problems I mention above apply to the term RCC even more so than they do the term “Orthodox” - again in agreement with your statement.
quote: I can list some names, - like Adoptionism, Montanism, Docetism, Modalism, Monarchianism - however, all of those really miss the point, since for each one you can either say they were “inside the church”, or say they are a type of Gnostic, or Judaiser, or other. The point is that there were all kinds of views among Christians, and churches probably a local flavor or emphasis - and as such are more of a (insert name here) congregation. You can’t really consider every early Christian local congregation to be PO, since at the time the PO church in was only developing it’s hierarchy, doctrines, and practices. In that environment, you had local congregations that had any number of views, practices, and leaders. Other groups did develop hierarchies, but even our understanding of the PO hierarchy is sketchy and based entirely on PO writings - if Valentinian Gnosticism had become the Orthodoxy Christianity, we’d similarly be without much in the way of evidence that there was a PO church. Even more so, saying that they were either Gnostic or PO misses the fact that there were tons of different groups we all class under “Gnosticism” now. It’s kinda like lumping “protestant” all into one theology. Though protestants are much less diverse than 1st and 2nd century Christianity, they do range from Anglicans (who are similar in many ways to the RCC), to Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, Lutherans, Mormons, and so on. You can see this from reading the Naq Hammadi texts - some are from one group of Gnostics, other from other ones. So even if all the other Christianities were Gnostic, that would still be a lot of diversity. Similary, the huge differences between groups in the PO was much greater than it is even today - the differences between a Baptist and a Catholic are nothing compared to those between a Marcionite and, say, Tertullian.
quote: ??? Why? It's not clear to us that any of those churches were started by apostles except in the cases of Paul. - in fact, it's not clear to us that there weren't significant non-PO churches in some of those places first. The only evidence we have of apostles starting churches is from Paul (who's sort of an apostle - he says he is, and he was so influential that everyone had to allow him that, but he wasn't involved with Jesus' life), and the book of acts, which is a much later legendary account that's know to have inaccuracies.
quote: What does the secrecy have to do with anything? They specifically taught that these views were passed on in apostolic succession, secretly. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene explicitly explains that. About Marcion, the idea that he thought he was returning to the uncorrupted Lukan gospel was mentioned in lectures on Early Christianity. I don’t know if there is explicit evidence based on, say, Irenaeus, or if it’s just obvious from the circumstance. For instance, why else would he cut up Luke, yet preserve the rest of it? If he didn’t think Luke was an inspired source, then keep most of luke as is? Since he clearly thought his view was correct, he would have thought that the original godly inspiration would have been correct. Apostolic succession was claimed by many early Christianities. For instance some Gnostic Christianities traced back through Mary Magdalene (which is recorded in GoMary), Valentinian Gnostics traced their apostolic tradition back through Paul, and some Adoptionist groups claimed succession through Peter and the Jerusalem church. It seems likely to me that many (probably not all) would do so - though we don’t have data one way or the other for most of them. Your noting that many of these groups were “inside the church” shows that those groups did claim apostolic succession - by the same chain claimed by the PO.
quote: ” The undisputed Pauline epistles are Romans” Philippians ” Galatians ” Philemon ” First Corinthians ” Second Corinthians and ” First Thessalonians The borderline cases vary in support, and are” Ephesians ” Colossians and ” Second Thessalonians , with Col appear to be the most likely to be Pauline among them, and Eph being the least likely to be Pauline among them. Very few people beyond apologists consider the letters of Titus, 1 & 2 Tm, and Heb to be by Paul. Thus, the pastorals (the first 3) are forgeries, and Heb is just anonymous, since it doesn’t say it’s by Paul, but was included in the Bible because the early Christian church thought it was by Paul.Oh, and the other Pauline writings (the non canonical ones like Laod, 3Cor, the Gospel of Paul and the Apocalypses of Paul) are also, like the pastorals, agreed upon as forgeries. quote: I was saying that RCC doctrine says that being good would not save you if you knew about the one holy church and weren’t in it. Thus, unless you can claim ignorance, being RC is a necessary, not sufficient requirement for salvation. Being good is required on top of that, as a subsequent requirement. It’s a matter of understanding the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. Look back at all those verses you listed. They all support the idea that being good is a subsequent requirement, though they more often make the implication that only Christians are good and that non-Christians are bad. I’ve heard that same thing from various Christian friends, who say that because (their) God is the source of goodness, you can’t actually be good unless you are Christian. When I pointed out examples of kindness by non-Christians, they said that those were cases where the person was really just doing it to make themselves look good - not out of real goodness. I hope you and I can agree that such a view is neither correct nor the only view Christians have.
quote: Writings are just a part of it, and it sounds like you haven’t read the many writings by the other Christians during the time, so you are just reading the PO writings from the time - there are dozens of other Christinan epistles, gospels, etc. Archeological evidence, inscriptions, and such are missing too. Plus, as you’ve probably noticed, even just the PO side of the debate shows the same thing - that different Christianities are there from the start. You can see this in Irenaeus, who goes on and on against all manner of other Christianities, and even from the new testament, where there are extensive writings against other Christians in books like Galations and the Jn epistles. Elaine Pagels wrote an interesting book (Beyond Belief), arguing just what you said elsewhere - that GoJ was written in opposition to Gnosticism (specifically, in opposition to the GoT). It’s interesting. Have a fun day-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Jar wrote:
quote: OK, let’s look at that a bit. People did write in their teacher’s name to express honor, as Jar mentions. This happened in greek philosophic schools too. However, back then people did often write to deceived and gain authority too, and even back then this practice was considered dishonest and frowned upon. We have solid examples of this from the 2nd century, when the Pastorals were written too. For instance, the author of 3rd Corinthians was caught while writing it, and accused of dishonest-type forgery. Galen found a forged book in his name, and was offended enough by it write a whole book about how to detect and reject books forged in his name. People back then were like people today - they would try to fool people for their own reasons, and they didn't like being fooled for any reason. So both occurred. I don’t know which motivation was behind the pastorals and the other Pauline works that aren’t by Paul (3rd cor, Laod, GoPaul, etc). All of them may be good and pure, or all forgeries, but of course it’s most likely that some are each type, and some are somewhere in between, such as the case where a Christian is unhappy because many of the other Christians in his congregation are moving the congregation in a direction he doesn’t like, so he happens to “find” a letter from “paul” that happens to support his side. From his view his motives were pure - to help everyone find salvation by saving them from heresy. From someone else’s view, he forged that. The situation above could be the origin of the Gospel of Paul, or of Titus, or neither. Or they could have written Paul’s name and the book as a fictional piece, like “call me Ishmael”, as written by Melville - not intended to deceive, but not in praise of Paul either. After circulating for a while, the most recent owner might not know this, and take the letter at it’s word as a letter by Paul. Without a time machine, a magic person-finder, and a mind reader, it’s hard to know which of all of these is what happened. So OK, I’ll agree that calling it a forgery is a bit harsh. It could well be true but again it may not. However, anyone who calls the other Christian pseudepigrapha (such as the Gospel of Philip, Paul’s letter to the laodiceans, GoPeter, etc) forgeries, yet calls the pastorals, or 2nd Pet, etc, “pseudepigrapha” is using a double standard. Either way is fine with me, as long as we are consistent. Have a fun day-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Truthlover wrote:
quote: Except that the various kinds of Gnostics were often within the church, as we discussed earlier. Especially early on, this even applied to the other Christianities - there appears to have been all kinds of Christians in the church in town, with the dominant strand being very different from town to town. They were all in the church, often, because they saw the differences between the Pagans and themselves as bigger than the doctrinal differences, even between Christianities that today would make the JWs seem just like the RCC.
quote:No, because all of them were “apostolic”. Why go to another church if you are apostolic already, being founded by, say, Valentinus or Marcion? Especially if you already knew rome or ephesis was controlled by what you saw as heretics? quote: I think we agree that over time there has been a growing trend, from 50 CE to 2007 CE, going from all Christians worshipping together, slowly growing to being more likely to form their own church and be separate (with of course long periods of stasis, such as the middle ages). I see some of this growth in the opposite way you do, perhaps - many different shoots springing up, then being cut in some cases, woven together in others, to make the RCC, then that re-fragmenting in the reformation to today.
quote: Yes, I agree - the conflicts are different in a number of ways. The topics are different, the degree of hairsplitting is different (I mean that as a way to describe it, not to be aggressive), the context and time is very different, and the presence of other religions has varied too, not to mention the huge impact of changing information technology, like gutenburg and then the internet. However, the pre-nicene disagreements and problems were quite large too. Pauls letters show this, from doctrinal disagreement all the way to other church problems, like in Corinth (glossalia confusion, gluttony, shacking up with one’s stepmother, etc . ). All for now. Gotta go! I’ll reply to the posts in the JW thread next week. Have a fun week all (Anastasia too). -Equinox Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Truthlover wrote:
quote: I think in general we agree here, since most groups start out mostly within the PO church and end up increasingly outside of it. From my view this is an artifact of the process of the gradual formation of PO views. In other words, the earliest Christianity is vague and nebulous, and as doctrines are sorted out and particular questions answered, more groups have different answers. So if we focus only on one set of answers (the PO set), then it'll look like groups are leaving over time. The Christian writings we have show that there were many other Christianities, both within and outside the church pretty much all the time from the start to the 5th century. You have read this as well as I have. In all cases, there is plenty (even just from the PO side) showing this. For instance, here are some authors from each century that feel the need to write page after page against the other Christians, both within and without the Roman hierarchy: 1st cent - Paul, pJn, 2nd- Ignat, pPaul, Justin, Iren, 3rd- Clement, Serap, Tertullian, 4th- Epiphanius, Athanasiu, Eusebius, 5th - Augustine, etc . In all of those cases, we have literally volumes written against other Christian beliefs, both inside and outside the PO church. There may well be trends where one is more common at some time, but they aren’t hard to find in any time period.
quote: He may have said that, but using it to say that there weren’t many other Christianities would be pretty silly since Irenaeus himself wrote whole books about the other Christianities. Besides, what does he mean by “believing the same things”? All the Christians, from Gnostic to PO, believed that Jesus was spiritually important, for instance. If you make the statement very vague, then everyone will “believe the same doctrines”, but if you are specific, then even in a small cult there will be disagreements. By the end of the 2nd cent, when he’s writing, there were a lot of Christian churches, so even just the PO ones would be able to be found, as he said.
quote: I agree that the Gnostics were more in the church early on, and more outside the church later on. This follows the basic trend over the whole time period, where the doctrines become more specific over time, and more separations happen. In early churches the handful of Christians may all worship together, later on they have all grown in numbers, and form separate churches for that and for many other reasons. However, the Naq hammadi library was found associated with a PO monastery from the 5th century, so they weren’t that separate, at least in that one case.
quote: Um, no - you missed my point. My point was that the Valentinians and the Marcionites both also had Paul in their apostolic succession. They loved Paul, a true apostle of their church. Of course they would say to put authority in the churches founded by Paul - those were, in their eyes, the churches that were Gnostic or Marcionite in Ephesis or wherever. Sure, there were those PO churches that claimed to have been founded by Paul - but they must be lying about their founder. That’s how they saw it. That’s why, for instance, Paul’s letters were part of the Marcionite Bible. So yes, the Gnostics would have told the PO to go to the Gnostic church that had been founded by Paul to learn the correct doctrine, that Gnosticism was correct. And of course the PO would have said the opposite. Same for many of the other Christianities.
quote: OK, sorry, I was just trying to find common ground. We really have quite a few more than 2 splits in those 200 years. Most of them were from groups that mostly different from the beginning - hence all the writings against those groups over that time. Maybe we can agree on this - I think there has been a growing trend for Christians to be less tolerant of differences in doctrine. In the very early church, you had radically different Christianities worshipping together (for instance, Trinitarian and modalist, or such), then during the protestant reformation churches split over smaller points like how to see the Bible, and today the splits can be over even smaller things, like OSAS, or eschatology, or such. Or if we don’t agree there, then how do you see the changes in how Christians respond to different types of Christianity over time?
quote: Might I suggest then looking into the huge amount of other early Christian writings? The Nag Hammadi library is one place to start, as is earlychristianwritings.com. Reading just one side can’t be expected to give one a full view.
quote: But doesn’t that view - the view that God guided the process of church and Bible formation- lead to all kinds of worse problems? For instance, first it seems to justify might makes right, since as the winner one can then claim to be the tool of God, and all that blood spilt was done under divine order. Then it seems to blame God for all kinds of ineptitude - since our Bible has been clearly changed and clearly miscopied in many places, not to mention things like your words here:
quote: So then did God plan to have Heb included in the Bible without any apostolic link? Did God plan to have words in the Bible say a letter is by Paul, when it isn’t? Or the PO church had God behind it, but the process of formation or the PO’s Bible didn’t have God behind it? Did God plan to have the RCC suppress, often bloodily, other churches for 1000 years? The most common response to this line of thought is to look back at history, and say that nice things are directed by God, while the immoral things are human mistakes - but that always looks like handwaving. It reminds me of when a Christian I was talking to told me that God directed the reformation so as to purify the church and correct the canon of the Bible (from 73 to 66 books). At first I thought he was joking, then I was horrified! That process included wars where Christians killed Christians for being the wrong kind of Christian for over 200 years, killing 10 million people - more than the modern holocaust, back when the world population was so much smaller. This was a “divine plan”!? I had a hard time even imagining a way what would be a worse way to do it. Yet this person was saying that casting all of Europe into lengthy wars, and leaving the Bible problem unresolved even to today was “God’s perfect plan”. It may just be me, but it seems to me that such an explanation is saying terrible things about God. It reminds me of Mt 12:31. To take that to today, if God planned and guided the early PO church, and history unfolded according to his plan, then is the current fractionization of Christianity also his plan? If not, then did he guide for a while and then stop? Or does the success of a church mean that God is behind it? If so, then the Mormons and the Pentecostals must be what God wants - since their memberships are growing quickly, especially compared to Catholic and mainline protestant churches. Now I’m not saying that you are saying that - I’m just checking what you mean. Take care- Edited by Equinox, : No reason given. Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Wow. I could quote all the things I agree with, but, I’ll skip that. From your post, I have to say there is a lot I like about your Christianity. Part of it comes down to which of the following is most important: 1. Believing the “right” things (being an "orthodox" Christian) or 2. Doing good in the world. By your examples and words, you’ve made it clear that #2 is more important in your Christianity. Most of Christianity, including the RCC, is firmly behind #1 as a first and necessary condition, with #2 being important only after #1 is met, if #2 is important at all (depends on the sect). In addition to doctrines and dogmas that say this, actions bear this out too. For instance, RCC candidates for sainthood are always closely checked via #1 first, as can be seen by the saints that were OK by #1, but not #2 (Augustine, who approved of violence against “heretic” Christians comes to mind). An even stronger sign are the people who shine on #2, but don’t pass #1 - they are never saints. Gandhi and King are great examples of that, and you clearly see them as a good examples (as I do).
Your Christianity is also generally immune to the charges of hurtful things being in the Bible. Lastly, I had a couple minor quibbles/nuances wrt history - but you know, those really aren’t important. It’s interesting to learn about your spirituality. I wish you the best, especially with the inevitable conflicts you must have with other Christians over your view of the Bible. It’s easier, though not mentally stable, to hide who you are in that respect in the interest of peace. I’m sure you’ve already thought that through. Enjoy this day- Equinox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
quote: “use them to preserve what had been revealed.” OK, there’s a question. So God, through using people as his tool, has preserved his revelation? That raises a ton of problems, not the least of which is the poor “preservation” we see. You do know that there are thousands of copies of ancient manuscripts of the Bible, none of which (except for the littlest fragments) agree with each other word for word? Or, is that all part of “letting human imperfections occur”, which seems the opposite of “preserving”. I mean, is God preserving or not? If he is, then explain the poor preservation. If he isn’t, then why say he is? Or, if it’s halfway inbetween - where God is hoping some preservation happens, but not acting to make sure it does, despite his ability to do so, - then why? Why would God intentionally allow millions of people to potentially end up in Hell because God doesn’t want to do a complete job of presvation of his hell-saving word?
quote:And this is exactly the view that causes each church to think it is the right one, and thus opens the door to the bloody religious wars between 1500 and 1700, as well as authorizing “new revelation” in churches like the LDS. quote: And what message would that be? After so long it should be easy to see what it is, and yet we have literally thousands of different Christian messages, each one claiming to the correct one. History has shown that though each conflict comes to an end, the state of conflict itself is neverending, as long as anyone thinks revelation is important - because a private revelation is inherently divisive, since a private revelation can’t be tested or repeated. So while technologies to more effectively wage war will be perfected (and then often used), a state of conflict won’t be outlasted by anything, until private revelation is abandoned as a divine source of information. After looking at the sweep of history, do you really expect anything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anastasia wrote
quote: That doesn’t follow from Catholic Doctrine, from the actions of the RCC, and most of all, from the Bible itself. There are tons of groups that preach to do good in the world, and who also do good in the world - the many early Christianities, Hindus, Muslims, and probably even most humans. They aren’t even considered to be orthodox. A good example of this are the Jains, who are more focused on doing good in the world than any group I can think of - yet their being orthodox is silly to even suggest. If it were the case that doing good in the world was the main decider of orthodoxy, then wouldn’t Augustine have been considered instantly unorthodox for ordering torture, and excommunicated, instead of canonized? I agree that doing good is considered a good thing in the RCC. But it is clearly neither sufficient (according to Catholic doctrine for those who know of the Catholic church are aren’t in it), nor is it necessary (see people like Augustine) for heaven, much less sainthood.
quote: Unless, of course, it is Jesus himself doing the preceding: Mt 22:36
quote: We also have tons of church history up to the present day showing the same thing - that orthodoxy is of prime importance, while good works are important only if the orthodoxy is OK - and often not even then. Some examples - were the crusades (which were blessed by pope after pope) motivated more by “good works” or by “orthodoxy”? Or the killing of thousands of people for being the wrong kind of Christian? Even today, if a priest were to preach unorthodox views (like Rev. Matthew Fox, who preached that people in other religions would go to Heaven and that the Earth itself is sacred) he would get excommunicated. Yet, when not a few, not 20, not 500, but over 5,000 cases of Catholic priests molesting children came to light a couple years ago, the church was shown by court evidence to have repeatedly worked to cover up the crimes instead of punishing the priests. Even today, numerous watchdog groups for the victims have publicly stated that the RCC’s final stance is little more than a further coverup. The RCC on the other hand is using the incident as an excuse to demonize homosexuals, and to purge “earth centered” religious views from it’s seminaries. Another example is the many Catholic priests in Africa who preach that condoms are not to be used because condoms cause AIDS. In saying something scientifically wrong and socially devastating, they cause thousands of deaths a year. Yet, the Vatican not only doesn’t excommunicate them, but actually supports them - again because orthodoxy trumps “doing good in the world” in most cases. Who did the RCC have a bigger issue with - Galileo, who wasn’t orthodox, or Hitler, who didn’t do good works? Of course we know that the RCC arrested, convicted, and punished Galileo, while it worked in cooperation with Hitler. In case you didn’t know, there was a huge book documenting the RCC-Hitler ties (Amazon.com). The Vatican did have an official objection to the book - it complained that in one photograph, one priest’s name was mislabeled. That’s it - that’s all it could find that was incorrect. Anastasia wrote:
quote: Yes. That good moral code is partially repeated in the Bible, and appears to have origins unrelated to RCC doctrine or the RCC church.
quote: Well, other than the RCC doctrine, which we’ve discussed. Those outside the faith can only be in heaven if they didn’t know of the Catholic church by when they died. As we saw, if one knows of the RCC and is not in it, then that person goes to Hell, no matter how good and nice they are, or how much they plead, since after death conversions are not allowed in the RCC (after death baptisms are allowed in the LDS church).
quote: Sort of. Here are the criteria, from (Frequently Asked Questions about Saints - Saints & Angels - Catholic Online):
quote: So in the past it was simply a popularity contest. Now, I guess “good works” may be part of “heroic virtue”, but that could also include things like refusing to recant under persecution or such. I suppose the two miracles could be considered “good works”, depending on what they were. But even with all that twisting, it’s hard to get “it’s all about the good works” from the canonization process. Now I don’t mean this post to be aggressive, but there are so many points that we’ve discussed already, that I’m feeling frustrated. I know what it’s like to be Catholic - I was one for 20 years. Both sides of my family are mostly Catholic even today. I grew up with a nice rosy picture of absolute unquestionable truths. I was confirmed in the path of helping this church and the good Bible it was based on. It was only after I began to learn history on my own and think on my own that I saw things differently. It was only after a long process of looking into things myself that I found that “doing good in the world” meant that I had to stop giving my time, money, and support to a church that was very often a force against good in the world. Don't get me wrong - there is a lot of good things about the RCC. Many Catholics do good works, and I love all the incense and candles (which I just buy myself now). It's just that on balance, it seems that it has usually been, and still is today, a force against the solutions to the world's problems. Take care-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anastasia wrote:
quote: Um, have you read “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”, by Ehrman? Or noticed how much is different between protestant Bibles, Catholic Bibles, Ethiopian Bibles, etc? If what we have isn’t “poor preservation”, I wonder what would be. Plus, if God is, ultimately, in charge of the preservation, then I’d expect a much better job. Wouldn’t you, from an all-powerful God? That’s why it sounds blasphemous to me to suggest that God is doing the preserving.
quote:But I thought that with God, all things were possible? See above - this view seems to greatly diminish God. quote: Right, except that we could accept that NONE of them are known to be correct, in which case the cause for fighting evaporates. It seems to me that there is something that can be done - simply dropping the idea that one of them is correct, and drop the idea that Hell awaits those with the wrong dogma. Then we can each be wrong in whatever way we want, and we don’t have to worry about those evil heretics causing our children to lose their salvation and go to hell. But of course, that also removes the main selling point the RCC has (fire insurance) - so the church isn't going to drop the dogmas of hell and of infallibility, and so it’s up to us to move past those.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anastasia wrote:
quote: I respectfully disagree. Any statement - whether it’s called a “belief”, “idea”, “thought” or “doctrine” may or may not be testable, based on what the statement says. For instance, if I were to say that “last night my dreams were recorded by the aliens near the star Vega, who use our dreams for entertainment”, then it indeed would be hard to test that (until we can travel to Vega or such). Similarly difficult to verify or test statements include “my dog has premonitions of the disasters that will happen in the 22nd century”, “Napoleon would have hated Rap music” or “after death our souls are trapped in crystals in the center of jupiter”. On the other hand, many statements are easily testable. For instance “water boils near 100 C at 1 atm pressure”, “my God vaporized the moon last night”, or “New York city was hit by a 10 ton asteroid yesterday”. For any belief, we can see if it is testable, and if testable, test it. Now, let’s look at the ones you listed: (my numbering)quote:#1 is testable. It would be more testable if there were more historically verifiable accounts in the scriptures, but there are plenty that don’t fit with decently established history to show that the scriptures (I assume you mean those in the RCC Bible, not, say, the Hindu scriptures.) are not perfect accounts. Some examples where we have decent knowledge that the Biblical accounts are inaccurate include the destruction of Jericho, the origin of language at Babel, the Quirinian census, the Geneology of Jesus, the resurrection story (since the gospels contradict, they can’t all be right), the conquest of the holy land, etc. #2 - I’m not sure what you mean here. Help me out, since I assume you aren’t talking about calculus. Other testable religious beliefs include Mk 16:17-18, where Jesus says that Christians can safely drink poison, handle venomous snakes, and heal others by their touch (evidence shows that none of that is true), or that prayer to one God (say, Vishnu) heals others more than prayer to another God (say, Zeus). So yes, some beliefs are testable, depending on the belief. Calling something a “belief” doesn’t make it immune to logical testing. For instance, many Christians believe that the Bible has been inerrrantly created and preserved with word for word accuracy by the holy spirit. That’s obviously false due to things like the historical problems mentioned above, the many different versions of the Bible, biblical contradictions, and so on. You and I agree that such inerrancy is a belief, and we agree that it’s testable, and that it’s incorrect.
quote:I agree there is little point in having faith in something that is testable and hasn’t been shown to be correct. But I don’t think we have a requirement to believe at least one undemonstrated thing. What’s wrong with not believing anything without some evidence? I think you allude to that here: quote: I think you are suggesting that without religion, you can’t have morals (correct me if I’m wrong in reading that from your statement). If you are suggesting that, then I again respectfully disagree. There is plenty of evidence to answer that - for one, atheists aren’t immoral any more than anyone else. I know plenty of wonderful, loving people who are atheists. Studies have shown that atheists are not overreprented in prisons compared to Christians, etc. More than that, I really hope you and most Christians are good people because you see being good as worthwhile in itself, and are not people who would rather be evil if it weren’t for some cosmic threat from a big-brother type deity. I, for one, am good because I want to be good, regardless of what some god thinks of it. For instance, if I were magically transported to a universe ruled by an evil deity who would send me to hell for being good, I’d still be good, and go to hell for it. I hope you would too. If someone wouldn’t, then are they really a good person, or are they just an evil person who is being forced into being good? There are plenty of non-biblical sources of ethics and morality. Many atheists I know base their ethics on logic, which we can get into if you want (start a thread on it). Most, it seems, haven’t done this, instead using the basic common sense morality all humans have, which we appear to have evolved in response to group living. That’s why it’s so common across humanity, regardless of creed (or lack of creed). In the same way, many Christians I know disregard the Bible as a source of moral guidance, since it has so much nasty morality as well as being clearly historically influenced. Instead, they use the same non-biblical moral basis so many others use, and see it in a Christian framework - not in the sense of "God commands me to follow these rules", but more in the sense of "WWJD".
quote: Well, now let’s keep things in context. I was talking about the untestable theological beliefs, and about those, I don’t see any realistic threat of Hell for the wrong beliefs (contrary to Christian doctrine). I do think it’s fine to be believe in more than one God (or even to believe in 3 gods that equal 1 god), as long as one acts ethically. For the other stuff, of course there’s a problem there, since those violate basic ethics and morality. For those, acting unethically I don’t think will lead to an otherworldly hell, but will cause harm to both themselves and others in this world.
quote: If there is a hell, then it’s likely that everyone is doomed. After all, there are literally thousands of religions, including (many) Protestant, Zoroastrian, Catholic, Muslim, and more that claim you go to Hell if you aren’t in their religion, and also state that you can’t be in the other religions at the same time. Your odds of getting the right one are worse than 1000 to one. So if any Hell exists, we are all hellbound many times over. Plus, the Bible makes it clear that those in heaven watch those in Hell. I wouldn’t be happy watching any human being endlessly tortured, or even knowing such was going on. I’m sure I’d have relatives and friends being tortured, since Jesus is clear that most people are going to Hell. Thus even if I somehow guessed right and ended up in Heaven, it would be hell for me after all. In fact, know that some of my loved ones were being tortured would probably make me prefer to be in the literal hell than heaven. Unless I were an immoral, selfish jerk, then I wouldn’t want to spend eternity in comfort worshiping a God who would torture anyone. If anything, I don’t think the above makes it sound too easy. A path of integrity often isn’t the easiest path, and I don’t think it is in this case either.
quote: No, the idea of hell predates the first century by centuries in Persia. The earliest writings about Hell that I’m aware of are Zoroastrian, and with the rise of Zoroastrianism in the middle of the 1st millennium BCE, the idea of Hell became very prominent in Persia. Though their “contact” (shall we say), with the Persians, the Jews were introduced to, and slowly incorporated the idea of Hell. That’s why Hell isn’t in the Old testament - it’s an idea that’s literally foreign to ancient Judaism. By the 1st century, the belief in Hell was very popular, for obvious reasons (as an idea, it is a strong motivator to get one in any religion that has that belief, so it is selected for). Growing up in lower class Palestine, of course Jesus and his disciples would all believe in Hell, as would the later Christians who wrote the Bible. The fact that it works so well to keep people in line is much of why the RCC has it. That’s also why so many other religions today have it - religions that include the concept of hell have a selective advantage over time compared to those that don’t, and so over time those religions become more prevalent. Have a fun day- Equinox P. S. I hope to reply to your other post yet today as well. Edited by Equinox, : diversity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Equinox Member (Idle past 5172 days) Posts: 329 From: Michigan Joined: |
quote: I agree with you that doing good doesn’t make one Christian. Further, it’s simply in plain disagreement with both RCC and most Christian churches doctrines to say that “people of all faiths who do good are ”saved’.” That’s simply and easily shown to be false. I quoted RCC doctrine that if one knows about the RCC and isn’t in it, then they are not saved, no matter how good they are - it seems that re-quoting it from various sources isn’t going to help you. I’ve shown this over and over, and it’s also a main thrust of the new testament that being (the right kind of) Christian matters more than anything else in determining heaven vs. hell. I understand what it is like to want to think that the church I’m in promises salvation to all who are good. I remember very well being taught that and other nice things as a child growing up Catholic, only to find out they were wrong. I even asked once what would happen if you had exactly equally as much bad as good (is that where ghosts come from?) - and was told that then “baby Jesus would give you another chance, and you would be given another life as a new person”. Of course, reincarnation isn’t RCC doctrine either. It became clear to me when I got old enough to look into things myself that the RCC functions best by keeping people in the fold - that way they keep those little envelopes (of which I’ve given many) coming. It’s sometimes amazing how firmly moderate Catholics in the US will continue to support the RCC doing things that they wouldn’t think of supporting otherwise, but I know from my own experience how much more comfortable it is to pretend that the group one has supported for years is pure and good, and that they preach good doctrine - regardless of what the evidence shows.
quote:That wasn’t my point. My point was that your statement that “doing good is what matters” in regard to sainthood was simply incorrect. I looked up and copied the saintmaking process to show that it was simply incorrect, and that many other statements would be close to the truth, including one’s like “it’s miracles that matter” or that “it’s virtue that matters”. More that that, it fits the pattern I described above, where the RCC puts more emphasis on keeping members in the fold, even if that means allowing some errors to persist in some areas.
quote: I understand your frustration. I felt the same way when I came across things that didn’t fit my rosy picture of the church of my birth. But regardless of that, we are both committed to being a force for good in the world, and having a positive effect on the world is much more likely the more we understand about the world, and that includes facts that we’d prefer didn’t exist. In all cases, I’m sure we agree that looking at the evidence for both sides makes it more likely to make an informed decision.
quote: Here is one source, though the story isn’t rare, this should get you started: Vatican: condoms don't stop Aids | World news | The Guardian From that article:
quote: And:
quote:Anastasia wrote: quote: Yep it is. It’s about what is “good” with a different worldview. If hell really exists (as the RCC maintains), then an eternity of torture is clearly worse than anything here on earth. If one really believes in Hell, and really thinks that the RCC offers even a slightly likely way to escape it, then it is the inescapable conclusion that nothing else is more important. So what if a policy causes millions of people to die, or takes mothers from their children, or anything else? If hell exists, and the other religions can’t offer safety, than how could any moral person be religiously tolerant? Wouldn’t lying, even about the efficacy of condoms (or their being laced with a deadly virus), be potentially virtuous if it saved even one person from eternal torture? What about the crusades? Of course it’s justified to slaughter whole cities if that’ll prevent the spread of Islam - if one sees Islam as a ticket to hell. Wouldn’t we then be morally obligated to kill/torture heretics? Of course. What difference would medical advances make (or the use of stem cells to better human existence) - if our time here is nothing compared to an eternal afterlife? This same type of logic has always shown up - when anesthesia for childbirth was developed, it was opposed by the RCC because it could prevent a woman from suffering the God-ordained punishment mentioned in Gen 3:16, and as such was “playing God”. The bottom line is that I realized I can’t contribute to a better world for our next generation (and could easily be a force against improving our world), if I had a distorted worldview. Sure, no worldview is perfect, but some are a lot more distorted than others, and the concept of Hell changes so many priorities, that of course it can make “good” actions into evil ones, and vice versa. But of course, the actions of African Bishops and the Vatican are rarely reported much in the US, and certainly not preached about by preists. They know that won't help the constant flow of millions of dollars from moderate US catholics, who are by and large good people with good intentions. Take care- Equinox Edited by Equinox, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
