Dude, read my first post - the Roman Church made Christianity mainstream and viable - they created the rules against which Protestants rebelled but ultimately still created the framework for Protestant belief. Further, if Christianity never takes off then Baptists don't exist today, etc. The Church established "the Bible" when they picked what to put in it, how to translate it, interpret it over the years, added theology to it by way of marginalia, etc. I find that near impossible to do. First not very much remains intact that the victors did not purge or villify, second, whatever original ideas were there would have also evolved and changed over the years and anything that lasts for thousands of years will be destined to get bogged down, fracture, etc, and third, emotions are usually too high for such things to go well. Religion is impersonal for me but as seen in here, peope get upset when one religion or denomination is put over theirs. So I just stick to talking about history and evolution, differences, etc.
If y'all are still arguing over who the nicest person is then I'd just like to put that topic to rest by assuring everyone that I am the nicest person on the BBS. Seriously. If you don't believe me you can ask your mom.
I knew what you meant; I was mainly trying to illuminate how your attitudes don't jive with mainstream ideas of "fellowship" or "biblical purity". Denominations explained:
While doing a short bid I met a guy who was somewhat knowledgeable about religion/Christianity. He said he grew up a Jehovah's Witness but while being incarcerated for ten years he sat down and read all the Bibles, including Mormon, Jehovah witnesses, Torah, Quran. He believed that hell as referred by the Bible was a grave, for some reason I remember the word Sheole(sp?)Also he believed that your reward after death was eternal life with God. Your punishment was ceasing to exist. I remember telling him that doesnt seem like a punishment at all... I would ask him questions and some things said stuck in my head, they were probably some stereotypes or something. Im wondering if Y'all ever heard anything like this... The Jews removed God's name from the Bible because they felt His name was too sacred to speak.. The Jehovah's Witness Bible is not the same as the others because they changed a word in order to fit their belief, which is: Jesus is the actual son of God, and not one and the same. The change was in the first sentence of the Gospel of John..They think Jesus is Micheal the Angel. He would reference certain parts of the Bible to back it up, which kinda sorta made a little sense... well not the Micheal part. Also I might have some stereotype/misconceptions of my own: Catholics refer to Mary as the virgin Mary, believieving she died a virgin? For those of us who believe Jesus is our messiah .... why aren't we Jewish? Are the Jews still currently waiting for their Messiah? Also, its been so long since I've read the Bible, but I think I remember there was a part were someone ask Jesus about religion, and His answer was not pro religion....
I am missing something because I can't figure out what you mean here. I don't know if it is you or me - I just know I am confused. As for your cartoon - it reminds me of Stranger in a Strange Land. Heinlein was great - written in the 60's and he saw the future of Christianity as Vegas-style entertainment with slot machines and everything. While not quite vegas, the modern megachurch with stadium seating, gift and coffee shops, and other shopping mall-like qualities is not too far off.
What denomination is this guy: <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qo9kJZvYBB0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Qo9kJZvYBB0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_detailpage&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
You said that the catholic church was "the reason Protestants are Christians in the first place". This is silly. The term "protestant" only exists because of the "protest" relative to the catholic church; the dogma and catechism therein was born from the bible as a protest to catholic excesses, not from catholic interpretation of the ideology. The idea that no protestant would be christian without the catholic church to rebel against is ludicrous. That would be like saying no catholic would have been catholic without the Jews. It totally obfuscates the historical reality. You can say no protestant would have been protestant without the catholic church - but that's a much different meaning. Like I said - I don't think you meant it this way per say. It was just worded terribly. =============== You say the church "established" the bible. This would seem to conflict mightily with the long-held and silly tradition that the bible is the unaltered, literal word of god. Furthermore, the Jews may be a little confused at your statement, as might a great number of the new testament authors. Simply saying the church "produced" the bible is wrong.
No, I did not mean it that way. I meant that if the Roman Catholic church had not come into existence and been so popular then Christianity would not have taken off and people in the Germany, the UK, or the US would probably be something different. That is why I put "produced" in quotes. Think of a movie - a producer doesn't write it but they put it all together. The Catholic Church put the Bible together and, thus, colored all Christian history post that moment. They chose what to include and what not to include. They chose how to translate over the years and through that process the Bible was altered and expanded in small bits. There are examples of this where early copies with marginalia later become "official" where marginalia is written as original text. That goes back to the earlier point - no version of the Bible exists today that is "pure" from Catholic touch, thought, and history. Obviously, I am not concerned with conflicting with "Bible as literal word of God" because I don't believe that...being an atheist and all.
It was replaced with YHWY. It was more about the misuse of the name God, from its own people and "infidels". For example, OMG. Many still consider it as sin to use the name God in vain. Mary: Jesus was conceived from God, not man. So therefore, Mary birthed Jesus a virgin. Joseph was not Jesus father. Someone mention Father Joseph??? Never heard of that, but coming from Catholics, not much surprises me. Jesus was the Jew's Messiah. He came back specifically for the Jews. The Jews rejected him because he was not what they were expecting. They were expecting a prophet to rise up and conquer the Romans, bringing Israel back as a country. Keep in mind this was a suppressed group of people who longed to become a country again. So if a man comes in claiming to be their messiah and did not intend to fill their wishes, he would be greatly despised. Thus why the Jews crucified him. Jesus then turned to the Gentiles (everyone else but the Jews) and rejected the Jews. We like to WWJD and turn to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but most of those four books are accounts of Jesus pursuit of the Jews. Its not accurate to build a Christian faith off those four books, just as its not accurate for Christians to turn to the OT for their dogma. (Those 10 commandment things ... that was OT). Thats not to say Christians should ignore the OT and the Gospels, but Christians shouldn't draw their rules and regulations from that part of the bible as many of them do today. Jesus stated that the foundation of the church would be built from Peter.
I don't know if you meant it that strongly...but Jesus didn't reject the Jews. And many Jews didn't reject Jesus.
You mean when he asked God to forgive them for they knew not what they were doing he wasn't rejecting them?
Oh joy! A thread about religion! DD gets to make his insults, add a smiley and then continue his idiotic tradition of signing his posts! Someone give this man another hit of the rep points! Where would we be without his arrogant attacks on religion? " JT"
When Jesus asked that he wasn't rejecting them at all, and he also wasn't referring to Jews in general, but those that were currently in the process of hastening his death, and committing injustices.
I was completely serious. Asking the lord to forgive people who are torturing you isn't rejecting them. That would be the opposite of the forgiveness he was asking for on their behalf. Secondly he was only referring to those that were complicit in his torture and unjust treatment at the time. The story however does set an example that others might replicate. But it isn't rejecting of jews, and it wasn't directed at all Jews in general.
How obvious do you think this would be to a halfway intelligent person? OK. Now reread this sequence of posts...
