- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 19,804
- Likes
- 6,832
Atheists & Spiritualists = Equal Fools
- Thread starter Tenacious D
- Start date
BeecherVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2008
- Messages
- 39,170
- Likes
- 14,459
Gramps
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,143
- Likes
- 6,310
IPorange
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,545
- Likes
- 47
Words mean things.
The title "Christian" was corrupted into a near opposite image between the time persecuted believers were first called "Christians" (Christ-like, Christ-followers, almost the idea of a "groupie" today) and when the Roman Catholic Church ruled most of Europe with an iron fist.
A genuine Christian is defined by adherence to the principles and doctrines of the NT. That certainly doesn't prevent someone from being wrong about anything... it certainly DOES prevent them from coercing or killing those who disagree.
FWIW, the same "Christians" who killed and persecuted scientists for "heresy" over things like the shape of the earth... killed or persecuted far more for rejecting the Pope or Catholic dogma or even for translating the Bible into a "vulgar" tongue. I am pretty sure Jesus would have said that they weren't His followers. I've studied the NT... and just don't see the example Christ gave them for any of those actions.
IPorange
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 25,545
- Likes
- 47
Some did. You find a common cord- the political union between religion and state. That's one of the reasons I think too many people underestimate the dangers of Islam even in its more benign form. Actual or effective theocratic gov't is a fundamental.
Some protestant groups were far worse than others. I am not aware of the Swiss Reformed or Presbyterians being particularly oppressive. The Anglican Church OTOH was.
This is one of the many reasons I am a Baptist in the historic and fundamental sense. The roots go back at least 500 to 600 years. From the very start they opposed the church state union.
There was a cost to formulizing or acting on the early Baptist Confessions of Faith. One of the first was in 1644. During the same period, John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison for preaching without a license and refusing to attend mandatory Anglican meetings.
My major point is that the use of the label "Christian" is an oxymoron when applied to those engaged in oppression. You cannot be "Christ like" and attempt to impose your belief on someone else.
Ummm, no. They didn't.
The "catholic" (lower case c) was immediate. But the "Catholic" church as an institution developed much later as the remaining political power of Rome merged with institutional Chrisitianity.
BTW, I didn't argue that. I argue that the Bible is the true word unfettered by ex cathedra pronouncements and the traditions/dogmas of the RCC. The Bible does not provide for the institution of the RCC and certainly does not allow for the innumerable abuses of the RCC.
For instance, the NT text says the letters were to be read by or to all. For about 1000 years, the RCC allowed only the Latin Vulgate to be distributed within the areas they controlled. Few people read... even fewer outside the clergy read or understood Latin. IOW's, there was a concerted campaign to keep people ignorant of the document provided by God to tell them what to believe. Wycliffe and others who dared translate and print the Bible in the language of the "plow boy" were strongly opposed the Rome.
They killed, seized property, persecuted, and otherwise oppressed dissenters. The Waldensians are one of the groups we have at least a partial history for.
and? we don't see that same misuse of religious power on the protestant side?
Few people read... even fewer outside the clergy read or understood Latin. IOW's, there was a concerted campaign to keep people ignorant of the document provided by God to tell them what to believe. Wycliffe and others who dared translate and print the Bible in the language of the "plow boy" were strongly opposed the Rome.
Your argument is this was to stop the "real bible" from being understood. actually it was the opposite. the clergy at the time felt the real bible was the one written in latin and translating it into other languages could potentially change the meaning i.e. it could be lost in translation. fact of the matter is if you could read at the time chances are it was in latin anyways.
Few people read... even fewer outside the clergy read or understood Latin. IOW's, there was a concerted campaign to keep people ignorant of the document provided by God to tell them what to believe. Wycliffe and others who dared translate and print the Bible in the language of the "plow boy" were strongly opposed the Rome.
Your argument is this was to stop the "real bible" from being understood. actually it was the opposite. the clergy at the time felt the real bible was the one written in latin and translating it into other languages could potentially change the meaning i.e. it could be lost in translation. fact of the matter is if you could read at the time chances are it was in latin anyways.
Read my response to IPOrange. But on the whole, no. The protestants for one thing represented a decentralization of authority and power. They couldn't get away with as much
Motive is immaterial. It could have been intentional or just sincerely and tragically wrong. The effect is that extrabiblical doctrines evolved and those told to believe them had no means of finding out for themselves. Another effect is that the lay people fell into a terrible state of biblical ignorance and dependency on a power structure that had political motives to control them every bit as strong as an religious motives to convert them.
Abuses like indulgences would have been widely opposed if people had an independent means of searching the scripture.
FTR, are you really trying to justify what they did?
I could accept that some things were just mistakes with unintended consequences... but are you really trying to rationalize their oppression of dissenters?
Not really. Some of the bests and most ancient texts used by translators today are the ancient versions- Armenian, Assyrian, Coptic, pre-Vulgate Latin, etc. While the LV was dominant in the west, the Orthodox branch of catholicism continued to reproduce the Bible in Greek. IIRC, Alexandrian scribes did the same until overwhelmed by Muslims.
Gramps
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,143
- Likes
- 6,310
What do you call recently?
So many non believers on this forum refer to the Bible as a fairy tale.
If it is a fairy tale how can one explain things such as the earth being a sphere hanging in space being written at that time.
Most conservative scholars agree that events written in Job took place during the patriarchal age.
The events in Daniel are dated around 550-600 BC
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 32,601
- Likes
- 39,088
Can you empirically and effectively disprove the existence of unicorns, leprechauns and fairies? Like god, I've never seen one. Reason tells me that invisible and non-existent look very much alike. But I digress...
The fact is I've got little reason to debate or use fact instead of "faith" to disprove theism because frankly people are going to believe what they need and want to believe - n matter what anyone says. If believing in Allah, Thor or Zeus helps some one endure more easily during hard times, thats great, more power to ya. My beef is with the organized aspect of religion as a whole, it's clearly caused for more problems in this world than it's done good. I get sick of ones who want to "witness" or judge and persecute others because it's not consistent with what they've been told to 'believe'.
VN Store
