The Bible gets an edit....

How is it possible that the true word of God, meant for all of us with no confustion involved, has turned into various sects and denominations? How can the true Word confuse so many believers?

I've seen this argued now for a while in other areas of the net. To me, it is pretty much ridiculous, but to emphasize my weakness in decision-making situations, I'm not going to condemn or praise any one denomination. Actually, if my family had not said "We're protestant", I would just say "I'm Christian", but there is also the point of separating myself from catholicism so I don't end up getting lynched

Christianity in itself is not a branch (it's hard to be a branch of oneself), it's the tree.. I prefer to stay in the tree, as the branches are often very flimsy.

 

Well, i'm a person, and in this forum i posted my own thought. It's a valid question.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a valid question. What I'm saying is I'd like an answer to that question myself.

 

Fair enough, maybe i misunderstood.

What do you think of Mormons and their second testament of Jesus Christ? I always thought that was a bit weird.

 

Define "weird". I certainly don't see the Mormons as corruptive..

 

I think it's "weird" that they have a second book in addition to the bible, i was curious what you thought about that.

 

How can the true Word confuse so many believers?

That's the big question. And most other religions I know of have this problem. Buddhism seems like the least divisive religion imaginable, and even they have different "lineages" who are appalled by each other's take on things.

Here's a theory.

If you assume - as I do - that ALL religions contain the same truth but have simply been interpreted into differing ideologies, then we're like the blind men with the elephant. We've each got a hold of the tail, or the trunk, or the knee, and we think that's the complete object, when in truth we're all holding different parts of one elephant. This is human nature - our brains are designed to figure a thing out halfway, then break it down into smaller parts over and over until we get down to the smallest common denominator. Then we return to the "big picture" with a much deeper understanding of the whole. If and when we get back to the "big picture" of whatever absolute truth (or the lack thereof, which would be a truth in itself) may exist, we should be all the better for all our squabbling and pettiness.

 

Good point. Don't set your calendar though.

 

I'm not sure how many Catholics or Protestants could give you much real background on the history of the break in Christianity. If they could, there probably wouldn't be any animosity btwn the two.

 

I can give you real information on the break up of the denominations, and I still harbor animosity.
Well, perhaps animosity isn't the right word. Or perhaps it is...

Anyway, I don't think that it's the Bible that's giving us the different denominations. It's the interpretations of it. Of course, you could even argue that it isn't even that, but the politics inherent in our humanity.

"What do you think of Mormons and their second testament of Jesus Christ? I always thought that was a bit weird."

Weird is a little bit mild of a word to use for Mormons. Their little occult religion is actually quite disturbing. They believe that you get to be a god of a little planet populated with spirits in the afterlife, and that people rotate being the head "god," and it's all very strange.
One thing I will say in their defense, however, is that they are a very noble and righteous people.

"My thought on Catholicism as a whole, however, is that despite some outrageous, horrendous and downright questionable things the catholic church has done in the past thousand years or so, they are still cited as bringing some manner of order to the world."

Oh, let's bash the Church more, shall we? Because you know, the protestants never did anything bad either. Cited as bringing some manner of order? That's an understatement. And may I remind all our protestant brothers and sisters that we Catholics were here first, and if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be here, so I'd be a little more respectful.

"The Inquisition was an ongoing part of Catholic Spain."
Yes, that is correct. Sort of. The Spanish Inquisition was an ongoing part of Spain, the Papal Inquisition took place in Europe, the Roman Inquisition was an ongoing part of the Papal States, and the Reformation Inquisition was a short part of the Counter-Reformed Church's three-pronged attempt to bring protestants back to the Church. So, I ask again, to which Inquisition are you referring when you say it is "bad?"


"First off, targetting them is no better. 'Heretics' ends up being anyone the Church decides is not Catholic or does not have Catholic beliefs. The word was tossed around so much by the Church that it has no meaning. And you forget to mention the Moors, who ended up as scapegoats just like so called 'heretics'."

You're right, heretics are who the Church says they are. Heretics are those people who deny a fundamental teaching of Christianity and/or the Church. The Moors? Scapegoats? What? The secular government of Spain expelled them. The Church had nothing to do with them.

"Does this not sound to anyone else like the Thought Police from 1984?"

May I remind everyone here that the Church was not a "thought police" organization. The Church sought to control heresy because: 1) heretics tend to go to Hell and 2) heresy threatened the Church, and the Church was the stablization factor of a chaotic, war-torn world. To understand the inquisitions properly, you need to put yourself in the mindset of the times. The Church controlled life; life centered around Christ and faith and religion. Put in that sort of historical context, it becomes easier to understand why the Church did what she did.

 

"Oh, let's bash the Church more, shall we? Because you know, the protestants never did anything bad either. Cited as bringing some manner of order? That's an understatement. And may I remind all our protestant brothers and sisters that we Catholics were here first, and if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be here, so I'd be a little more respectful."

I never said the protestants never did anything "bad". The attitudes of both the catholic and protestant sects in Ireland make me cringe, as a matter of fact. I was not disrespecting the Catholic church either, I was stating a fact. Also, I don't see the relevance of which denomination was "around first" in this discussion. I think I made it clear that my family calls itself protestant, but I really don't. I prefer "of Christian faith", but because I'm not a catholic doesn't mean I'm bitter against them either.

 

By the way, I completely agree with that final paragraph in your last post. Bravo.

 

<<1) heretics tend to go to Hell >>

Saying someone is going to hell according to your faith doesn't give you the right to persecute them while claiming you're "saving" them.

 

Goldberry does have a good point though.

 

Innocent:"You're right, heretics are who the Church says they are. Heretics are those people who deny a fundamental teaching of Christianity and/or the Church."

Yeah, well, the problem is, that's exactly how Hitler reasoned getting rid of everyone who didn't agree with him or fit into his scheme of a proper righteous person. No matter how well intentioned the Church may have been over the years, the definition of who is "denying a fundamental teaching of Christianity and/or the Church" depends greatly on one's own point of view. If one is out to fry the neighbor, it can be twisted to fit him. And individuals, and sects within the Christian world, have certainly done this.

Then again, you have the same problem with government. Any effective government runs the risk of being tyrannical, and any tyranny-safe government is going to be mostly ineffective.

Innocent, I didn't think anyone was bashing the Catholic Church, so I wonder if perhaps you're oversensitized from bashing you've heard outside this forum. Just a thought.

 

InnocentIII,
I'll answer out of my propaganda book, so you can see how bias and propaganda-like it is:

On Spain, Inquisition, Jews and Moors:
"The rulers, though they made efforrts at political centralization, worked largely through facilities offered by the church, notably the Inquisition. They insisted on religious conformity. National feeling was church feeling,; the senf os "Spanishness" was a sense of Catholicity. Formerly the Spanish had been among the most tolerant of Europeans; Christians, Muslims, and Jews had managed to live together. But in the wave of national (or religious) excitement that accompanied the conequest of Granada both the Jews and Moors were expelled. The expulsion of Jews by a decree of 1492 was actually a sign of former toleration in Spain....all persons in Spain were now supposed to be Christians...The life of Spain remained a great crusade, a cruseade within Spain against Moriscos and Marranos, a crusade carried against the Moors into Africa itself....Spain was ready, before Protestantism ever appeared, to play its role in the Reformation, to be the avenging angel to extirpate heresy, and the stern apostle demanding Catholic Reform."

-The connections btwn the uprise of nationalism through religious unity and expelling all things 'foreign' is pretty obvious.

More on Spanish Inquisition:
"One [Inquisition] was the Spanish, established originally, about 1480, to ferret out Jewish and Muslim survivals in Spain. It was then introduced into all countries ruled by the Spanish crown and employed against Protestanitsm, particularly in the Spanish Netherlands, which was an important center of Calvinism."

On Roman Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition and torture:
"The other was the Roman or papal Inquisition, established at Rome in 1542...for the detection and repression of heresy. Both the Spanish and the Roman Inquisition employed torture, for heresy was regarded as the supreme crime, and all presons charged with crime could be tortured in civil as well as ecclesiastical courts, under the exisiting laws. In the use of torture, as in the imposition of harshet sentence, burning alive, the Roman Inquisition was milder than the Spanish....the Roman Inquisition never functioned for any length of time outside of Itay."

Spanish Inquisition, Spanish Netherlands, Philip II:
"Philip II, appaled at the sacrilege, fortwith sent in the Inquisition, the Duke of Alva, and reinforcements of Spanish troops. Alva's council of troubles, nicknamed the Council of blood, sentenced thousands to death, levied new taxes, and confiscated the estates of a number of important nobles. These measures united people of all classes in opposition....the Spanish reciprocated by renewing their confiscations, their inquisitorial tortures, and their burnings and hangings."

What about all this sounds good to you?

 

Merry Christmas Innocent!!

 

Yeah, Merry Mithras... I mean Christmas.

TPMRules, TreeCave... great points, awesome posts. Basically, from my observation, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad originated as man-made justifications for several greedy individuals/groups who wanted to convince their people to stand behind a cockamamie sovereign claim to a very valuable piece of land... nothing more, nothing less. Ever since I came to this realization, my respect for the institutions that "govern" these religions has all but disintegrated.

I'm being extremely considerate and polite by giving at least some credit to Christ, Mohammed and Moses for having (allegedly) been historical figures of vision... but that vision, whatever it was, has definitely been distorted and twisted beyond repair... My real thoughts on the matter? I won't even go there... Nobody wants to accept reality. Sugarcoated messages that make us feel better about things like famine, overpopulation, death, genocide are just enough to keep us from knowing what the religious and political leaders are really up to.

And yeah, I'd like to know... what exactly is good about persecuting people because one extraordinarily unoriginal religion says so?! ...a religion that, ironically, borrowed all its contents from other folklore and religions, yet somehow makes the absurd claim of uniqueness, and exclusivity with god when it is derived almost entirely from so-called "heretic/pagan" beliefs.

 

Religion normally starts as something that intends to fill answers for the CURRENTLY unexplained, provide meaning for life, and hope for disenfranchised individuals. But mixed into modern day - or even post Middle Ages - religion has become intertwined with politics, scapegoating, money, and power, etc. None of the things it originally stood for - particularly Christianity. Now politicians use religion to gain power, *ahem* Ashcroft, Bush, etc. They have nothing to lose b/c Christianity is a big enough majority in our country that by pandering to Christians in a manner that offends others is a big enough reward for a smaller loss.

I'm not sure Jesus meant for religion to be used and abused by politicians.

 

Hmm....why does this thread have to be about republican bashing?

Anyway, it seems to me that since science has explained many different phenomena, good things and bad things have happened. One extreme has been "Look, science explains it. There's nothing underneath, just what you see."

The other has been, "Science is used by the devil to make us think the earth is older, dinosaurs existed, snakes can't talk, etc."

One interesting thing about the Tao and Alan Watt's philosophy is, the only thing that could possibly be God cannot be named. If you can explain it, it's not god. God can't be limited to a book, or to a specific philosophy, because all that is man made. I think God is something you feel and sense, not something you can rationalize or anything like that. Human words can't even scratch the surface, and i really don't think any type of caring God would only tell a few people what the "Word" is, in a language He knew would be distorted over time, with all the little subtleties lost forever by people trying to translate something into another language that can't be translated into another language and have the same meaning. Am i making sense?

 

Cydonia,
"Hmm....why does this thread have to be about republican bashing?"
It's not at all. The two politicians I named happened to be Republicans, but their party had nothing to do with it. The way they manipulate religion and politics is why I named them.

"Am i making sense?"
Yes.

"it seems to me that since science has explained many different phenomena, good things and bad things have happened."
I can't think of an example in which science and religion went head to head and religion was correct. And there are hundreds of examples. The point being, religion needs to be more flexible and not get chaotic every time one of its strict interpretations proves false. IE, it wasn't until 1992 that the Vatican apologized for the house arrest of Galileo. And even then they had trouble admitting his 'theory' that the Earth was not the center of the universe was correct. Can you believe that? 1992, and the Vatican has to announce that yes, the Sun is the center of our solar sytem, and no, the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

 

Ah, the vatican. Another man made institution.

 

Cydonia,

Hmm....why does this thread have to be about republican bashing?

It's not about that for ME, but the Republican party DOES depend hugely on the Christian Coalition, which is mainly Jerry Falwell and some scary Southern Baptists. When Falwell & Friends first started pouring in billions in 1979, the Republican platform flipflopped and became pro-life after a long pro-choice (no government interference) history.

However, we could name Jesse Jackson as a Democrat who seems to use religion in his political career. I don't like it when he does it, and I don't like Joe Lieberman's constant references to God. Neither of those two seem a bit more sincere in their religion than do Bush or Ashcroft.

Maybe that makes it a little more equal.

I think the big point here is that religion and politics are both corrupt enough on their own. Mix the two, and all hell breaks loose.

 

When I bash politicians and religious institutions... I don't discriminate. Democrats care for your health care about as much as Republicans care for small business... about as much as religious institutions actually care about morals.

I can think of several religions and ideological systems (I say ideological because an idea is a far better thing than a religion constructed over a rigid belief system...) that aren't dependent on the existence of a central authority... they have survived in the hearts of people just fine, and are among the most accepting of beliefs. Now Innocent might come along and retort to me, as he did before, that if you're open-minded, you're just basically a weak-willed individual with no convictions... this is utter crap.

It's far easier to follow blindly what you're told than it is to actually have to question, analyze, figure things out and understand the underlying foundations behind things. Nobody credits sheep for their phenomenal "collective intellectual genius".

This might sound trite but... If some guy said he was the messiah and told you to go jump in a river, would you do it without question? If you would, the only thing you're being faithful to is your own ignorance. If the truth lies out there somewhere, and god already knows what that truth is... why in hell does god need, much less WANT, to test anyone's faith? If god is god, then god can't have an ego and cannot possibly be consumed with pride or disdain for his/her/its own creations. I certainly don't believe that god is some old fogey moron sitting on a throne with a flowing white beard and a cane, raining down orders on his fiefdom of angel-lords who exert their influence on the human "peasantry"... this idiotic personification of the wrathful-yet-loving, omnipotent-yet-egotistical man-god emerged as a result of patriarchal societies who couldn't see the world any other way (I'm going to invent a word here: Patrocentropathy= suffering from a male-dominated view of the universe; also see Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.).

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad blames woman for virtually all of man's stupidities. The Christian Empire... which wasn't the result of the Romans "seeing the light" of Christianity and willingly converting... it was their eventual realization that the Christians would never stand in the way of world domination if they simply assimilated Christian beliefs into their own... they thought the earth was the center of the universe, persecuted people like Galileo for seeking the truth, burned whoever they thought were witches, thought bloodletting could cure practically every ailment (because they're all caused by "demons", right?)... I'm going to entrust the definition of god to people who once believed epileptic attacks were possessions?

And how does the very human obsession for power have anything to do with spirituality or God? If there is a God, certainly it'd be above all that crap... but the Judeo-Christian-Islamic world wants you to believe otherwise... but don't you dare ask why! God forbid you might actually discover the truth... that man created this god in his own image, not the other way around. Just like Republicans and Democrats have manipulated our government to their benefit, not ours.

 

I'd have to say i pretty much agree. Don't ask "why" because "why" is evil. That's satan talking. He's deceiving you. Because it's in the bible, don't ask how or why it's in there, just accept an acient book as the law and spend your whole life hating yourself as a sinner, "just because." It's very frustrating.

BTW, there's a harry potter book burning at Christ Community Church in New Mexico this sunday. Bring the whole family.