Everything gets twisted, really. Religion and otherwise. We are but humans.
Everyone warps reality to mesh with what they want to see. It's called being human.
I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with organized religion, but you are guilty yourself (as is everyone else) of molding everything you see to support your own conclusions.
EDIT: Spurminator was faster and more concise
How so?
Just about every post of yours in the political forum, the same for me and for everyone else. There is always a portion that we either don't recognize, or consciously choose to exclude because it doesn't help our argument.
Agreed. Also people tend to reject information that goes against everything that they have had drilled into their heads. Which is why religion is taught to dumb little kids, so it will be hard to reject.
People also tend to be very abrasive and resort to insults when faced with something they don't want to believe.
I completely disagree. Not everyone here is sitting there molding the facts to fit their viewpoint. While its almost always impossible to know every angle of a situation and therefore there is always missing information allowing for that with an open mind and allowing for your belief structure to change based on new information superceeds it.
Just because I believe in something doesn't mean that my beliefs aren't open to change based upon new information.
Well, we all would like to believe that about ourselves, but when it comes down to it, we all stick to our guns on some issues no matter what.
I'm a Roman Catholic, therefore I can't speak for other Churches.
Honest question: Do you have an example where the the Catholic Church twisted the teachings of Jesus?
Depends on what you're looking for Smeagol. Do you want the ones in a historical context? Or do you want the ones that are being taught today?
Yeah. I disagree.
Inquisition.
Crusades.
Conquistas of the Americas and Africa.
The whole Middle Ages period where the church was the richest ins ution in Europe.
The behaviour during the 1776-1980 (it could be said that it remains today) period, when in fear of reason, science, democracy, capitalism, comunism, secular socities, atheism, etc. Because of that fear the church supported dictators, kings, assasins, etc...
Would be nice if they didn't get to pick and choose which gospels to teach as well.
How about the deliberate exclusion of various scriptures including the book of Mary Magdalene and the Apocrypha?
I think that smeagol was speaking about whether Catholic beliefs were contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
I doubt that any Catholics today believe that they should go around killing heretics.
Fine, then lets start with an easy one. The refusal to allow women as priests and the refusal to allow priests to marry.
I suppose you can believe that Jesus never married and that Mary was just a good friend, but then I suppose you can also believe he had blonde hair and blue eyes.
What about the church's position on AIDS, stating that the Catholics shouldn't use condoms? Aren't they aware that millions of people die because of HIV?
Does the Church actually expect that couples don't have relations until marriage? They are forcing Catholics to do so, since they say that the use of condoms is non-catholic, as having sex outside the marriage, or for another purpose that isn't procreation.
This is terrible stance, it's like saying, "oh, AIDS was sent by God to punish you, because you like pleasure and lust too much". Well, in that case, who could be interested in worshipping such God? The centuries have passed, but many parts of the Church are still living in the Dark Ages.
Even portions of lent are economically fabricated. The reason you aren't supposed to eat meat on Friday is so that more people would turn to the plentiful fish supply in England.
You taking the teachings out of context a little. The Catholic Church believes in sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of pro-creation. I don't think the Church really has a position on AIDS except that prayers go out to those who are ill. The Church itself funds many programs on sex education and the policy of abstience.
Did this take place prior to the creation of the Church of England? If so, why did the Vatican take the economy of Britain into consideration?
Never mind that you are supposed to sacrifice things during Lent, I'm sure it was purely economic.
Your statement there is only a half truth, but it a common myth propagated about the catholic church. Although there is some truth to the econoical angle in England, it is not the only reason. Fish, in the day, was considered "common food". Meat, like beef and Lamb, were considered for special occasions. During Lent, it was considered a sacrifice to eat fish, like giving up the finer things.
Now present day, It has lost some of its meaning because fish is now considered a more formal meal unless your dining at Long John Silvers. May be Catholics should recommit themselves during lent with fasting on Fridays instead of spending tons of money at Pappadeaux.
But their sex education IS abstinence - and as for AIDS, they kind of take a "sucks to be you" kind of stance. They're willing to send their prayers and some aid, but they really aren't doing much in the way of preventing the spread of the problem - especially considering that Africa is gaining more members to the Catholic church every day, but is still a place where there are men who think they can rid themselves of AIDS by having sex with virgins. Where is the hope in Catholicism for those people who need education to be more proactive?
I'm sorry but wherre in Catholic Doctrine does it say "Sucks to be you"
Not that a agree with the Church on everything, ie women priest. But why is it the church's fault if someone does not follow their teachings or doctrine. Maybe it's not the Religion or more specifically The Catholic Church's Fault, but the person's. Many times people often blame the church for it's shortcomings because the church's teachings do not fit into their lifestyle. Maybe it is the person that needs to change their life style to fit the Church.
But I do agree that the Catholic Church could be more proactive in their education, but that is very difficult when their is such a shortage of people to do so, ie priests and nuns. It is easy to do in a country like the US, but very difficult to do in Africa and South America. I am not sure what the solution is to that. What are other Churches, Protestant and Muslim, doing regarding this typw of issue? Why does it seem as if people seem it os the resposiblity of the Catholic Church to head up this mission?
Last edited by DrRich; 08-04-2005 at 02:14 PM.
Jekka:
I’m no expert in the early Christian writings so my answer to your question might be incomplete.
From what I’ve read, there are a number of books that were left out of the New Testament. Some of them are much more famous than the Book of Mary Magdalene, such as the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and James. Some of these Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Thomas, are widely used by Gnostic religions.
Historically, the Fathers of the Church only relied on the four Gospels that made it to the New Testament because they believed those were the ones written by people who heard the Word directly from people who had direct contact with Jesus. That is the case of the Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark. People believe the Gospel of John was written by the beloved Apostle, but scholars have their doubts.
At the Nicene Council in the 4th Century, the Bishops got together to decide which books were, going forward, going to be included in the New Testament. They discarded all except the four we know. The reason was because they believed most of them were forgeries. The only true, divinely inspired Gospels are the four Gospels we know (that’s what the Nicene Counsel decreed). From what I’ve heard, most of the New Testament Apocrypha has been proved to be forgeries even by modern scholars. Most scholars agree that those books were written in the second half of the 2nd Century and in the 3rd Century. The Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew are said to be written between 60 and 70AD, while the Gospel of John is believed to be written between 80 and 90 AD.
If by Apocrypha you are referring to the books included in the Greek version of the Old Testament, but not included in the Hebrew Bible, then the Catholic Bible includes most of it. It’s the Protestant Bibles which not include the Apocrypha (except the King James version)
I think it says "sucks to be you" somewhere in Revelations. Or maybe that was God talking to Job.I'm sorry but wherre in Catholic Doctrine does it say "Sucks to be you"
Not that a agree with the Church on everything, ie women priest. But why is it the church's fault if someone does not follow their teachings or doctrine. Maybe it's not the Religion or more specifically The Catholic Church's Fault, but the person's. Many times people often blame the church for it's shortcomings because the church's teachings do not fit into their lifestyle. Maybe it is the person that needs to change their life style to fit the Church.
I agree for the most part with what you say on the church's shortcomings versus the convenience that many people want it to be, but in the case of AIDS in particular, if the church isn't going to condone condom use, then they should at least be willing to discuss the realities of AIDS and how it spreads so that innocents don't contract or pass it on unknowingly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
