[karajorma]

Not to mention that the SS was made up of about 40% catholic people. Certainly a big enough percentage to have caused all kinds of problems had the pope told them to switch sides.

[Flipside]

http://sxws.com/charis/history-6.htm

< Lights blue touch paper >
< retires >

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by TrashMan
And you seem to forget that the Catholic Church is not a state. It doesn't have a army to fight, and Vatican is in the middle of Rome.

Actually, it does have an army. The Swiss Guard. One of the few armies in the world to still use halberds and swords in addition to modern weaponry, with a total of 100 including the chaplain and the drummers. And the Vatican is an independent country, with the Pope as the official leader.

Not that this has any relevance, mind you.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Flipside
http://sxws.com/charis/history-6.htm

< Lights blue touch paper >
< retires >

You know attempts at that have been made throughout history, right? The attempts by French Catholics to wipe out the Huguenots. The battle over the Church of England led to the fall of a ruling house in Britain (the Stuarts). People do stupid things in the name of religion all the time.

I'm not trying to belittle the Holocaust in any way, mind you. I'm just pointing out that there have been many cases of religious bloodshed throughout the ages.

I also question the validity of some of the quotes within that page.  Also, it seems very slanted throughout.

[mikhael]

I thought we'd agreed earlier that the behavior of some idiots within a religion does not invalidate that religions (I believe we were talking about Eric Rudolph and islamist extremist terrorists at the time). It does not matter whether the Church worked out a deal with the Nazis. What matters, for the purposes of this thread is the beliefs and faith the religion represents. If we start picking apart faiths based on their most mistaken followers, not one religion will survive the examination, nor will the non-faith of science.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - what is the core of Christianity? Didn't Christ say that he came for all men (not just Jews/Christinas) Remember the story of the good samaritan? Remember the mercy he showed to everyone, regarless of whom they were?

Jesus also said that He is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one can come unto the Father but through Him. That passage is obviously dealing with salvation, not with "who should we be nice to?" I fully agree with being "nice" to everyone, regardless of who they are - and besides, that's Biblical, to repay evildoers with good, and thus you will heap burning coals (of shame for their actions) upon their head. That's from Proverbs, IIRC.

But that in no way translates into salvation for everyone regardless of what they believe in.

Originally posted by TrashMan

God loves those who do good. You tell me - why wouldn't he then reward them for their good deeds?

What the heck are you talking about? I mean, you're right that God loves those who do good deeds in a scrictly literal sense, but you make it sound like you need to do good deeds in order for God to love you.

News Flash: God loves you, no matter who you are, what you've done, or how many kittens you've killed with a BB gun.

Originally posted by TrashMan
And you a priest? Of what relegion/faith/cult/sect?
And I did ask several priest, some of which i know very good, some of which I'm related to, and they are all some of the best men I ever met. I would say you were outvoted.....

The Cohanim were the priests of the tribes of Israel back in the day. It just happens to be my last name - I wasn't being serious that that gave me any credibility.

What kind of priests have you been asking? Catholic?

Originally posted by mikhael
I thought we'd agreed earlier that the behavior of some idiots within a religion does not invalidate that religions (I believe we were talking about Eric Rudolph and islamist extremist terrorists at the time). It does not matter whether the Church worked out a deal with the Nazis. What matters, for the purposes of this thread is the beliefs and faith the religion represents. If we start picking apart faiths based on their most mistaken followers, not one religion will survive the examination, nor will the non-faith of science.

Amen.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

But seriously, read your Bible. That is the core of Christianity, and if a priest is saying what you said they were saying, then they're ignorant of the Bible.

It would seem that these priests, considering they ARE priests, have read the Bible, and have come up with an interpretation that is different than your interpretation.

[Bobboau]

I thought it was the Levites that were the preists

[Setekh]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - what is the core of Christianity? Didn't Christ say that he came for all men (not just Jews/Christinas) Remember the story of the good samaritan? Remember the mercy he showed to everyone, regarless of whom they were?
God loves those who do good. You tell me - why wouldn't he then reward them for their good deeds?

To add to what Sandwich has said, it may be worth your time to have a re-read of Phillipians 3, where Paul describes how worthless good deeds are in comparison to "righteousness that comes from God and is by faith". Good deeds are wonderful, but they are only useful as evidence for a character transformed by grace, not as a means of salvation.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by TrashMan
@Sandwich - I do think a Priest knows far better then you the core of Christianity. And I didn't ask just one priest - I asked several....they all agree...

Short, simple answer: As someone who is only a couple steps from being the guy who trains clergy for their task, I can tell you that either they didn't learn their lessons well, or else their teachers need to come up for review.

Longer, more nuanced answer:  Multiple understandings of the Christian religion exist.  However,  one of the main differences between theology and philosophy is that theology has a rule against which to measure ideas.  Ideas that break the rules are heretical.  Ideas that do not break the rules are orthodox.  If a given understanding of the Christian religion breaks the rules, it is heresy.  The idea that well-behaved people will receive eternal life simply by virtue of being well-behaved vilolates the rules.  

It would be correct to say that Christians are called to be disciples of Jesus.  This means putting our trust in him for our salvation, making him our leader/king/teacher, learning from him how to confrom our lives to his example and will, and more.  Merely "being good" is not the same as "being a disciple of Jesus"--there is much more to it than just being good.

[Flipside]

I don't recall at any point saying I agreed with the views on the website I posted, just wanted to point out that, since everyone has a different point of view, theres no point asking which the right one is.

I like religion, I detest churches.

[01010]

Originally posted by Flipside
I don't recall at any point saying I agreed with the views on the website I posted, just wanted to point out that, since everyone has a different point of view, theres no point asking which the right one is.

I like religion, I detest churches.

I'm quite the opposite, I loathe religion for the control it seems to have over people (same reason I loathe T.V really) but I think some churches are exquisitely beautiful buildings.

[Flipside]

LOL We both mean the same thing, just the other way round, what I mean is that to have a faith in something beyond yourself, is a good and even healthy aspiration. But I hate the idea of the 'Church of XX' etc, because all of a sudden you put people between yourself and your beliefs, and that is always dangerous.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael
It would seem that these priests, considering they ARE priests, have read the Bible, and have come up with an interpretation that is different than your interpretation.

It would seem that way, considering they are priests, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, complete or partial familiarity with the basis and root of one's beliefs is not quite as widespread as one would think.

Example: I think you'll agree with me that the "Christian" Bible begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations, right? It's not solely the New Covenant, in other words.

My father, who preaches in churches and congregations around Europe and the US, asked the church members at one of the meetings a few years back how many of them had read the whole Bible at least once, from Genesis to Revelations.

He was ashamed and shocked to see a mere 20% or so of the people raise their hands.

Similarly, many religious Jews have not read the whole Tanach (Old Covenant) through. They have select passages spoon-fed them by Rabbis, they read through the Psalms hundreds of times, and they have the Torah portion readings which go through the first 5 books, Genesis-Deuteronomy, once a year.

Such examples should serve as a warning not to assume that someone has certain knowledge simply because of their title or position.

The Bible is very clear on the issue of other gods, other ways for salvation. It is clear beyond any possible mistranslations. Thus, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from an example of priests who claim that we all worship the same god is that those priests have not read the Bible through. Either that or they are purposefully misleading others.

Originally posted by Bobboau
I thought it was the Levites that were the preists

Some of them, yeah. It's a square-rectangle thing.

[Grey Wolf]

Some priests are completely incompetent. The one at my church, for example. His homilies make less sense than what Darkage said when he was drunk

[Corsair]

Sandwich are you a cohen?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

The Bible is very clear on the issue of other gods, other ways for salvation. It is clear beyond any possible mistranslations. Thus, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from an example of priests who claim that we all worship the same god is that those priests have not read the Bible through. Either that or they are purposefully misleading others.

Or, perhaps, they have read it and come to a different conclusion about what it means.

You continue to assume that ONLY your interpretation could possibly be correct.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Corsair
Sandwich are you a cohen?

That's my last name, yep.

Originally posted by mikhael


Or, perhaps, they have read it and come to a different conclusion about what it means.

You continue to assume that ONLY your interpretation could possibly be correct.

I do see your point, Mik, but I maintain that it is not a matter that is stated vaguely enough that differing interpretations can change the meaning so drastically.

Of course, I should probably know better than to assume that sort of thing; I had a chat with a religious Jew in reserves last year. We spoke about the Ten Commandments. One of them is, in Hebrew, "Lo Tignov", which is "(you shall) not steal".

In my utter silliness, I assumed that that meant "You shall not steal." Hah.

So this dude informed me that the Rabbis decided that the "Don't steal stuff" verse is actually the "You shall not covet your neighbors' blah blah". The first verse actually means "You shall not steal a man's soul".

Apparently the Rabbis of this generation decided that it meant just that. Also, if the next line of Rabbis decide it means "Don't steal stuff", then the meaning will change and it'll mean that.

At this point I gave up the discussion; how can one debate a matter of meaning with someone who doesn't really care what a statement is, it only matters what people with titles say it means?

Hence my point on remaining true to the written word of God. It is (should be) the bottom-line for Christians and Jews, because blind reliance on Man's interpretation can get wildly varying results, even to the point of outright contradiction with what is actually written.

[Bobboau]

I vaugely recal something about the law being writen in your heart and not in stone, thinking i's something Jesus said, but as I said it's only a vauge memory.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I vaugely recal something about the law being writen in your heart and not in stone, thinking i's something Jesus said, but as I said it's only a vauge memory.

Among other things, it's an Old Testament promise that God makes to Ezekiel about the future people of God (Ezekiel 36). Rather than having the law written on stone tablets (thus being able to force behaviour but not actually make us want to do something), our behaviour and nature will actually be changed. Paul uses a similar analogy to reference to the Gentiles being given consciences apart from the Old Testament Law in Romans 2, and also refers to the same heart/stone terminology in 2 Corinthians 3 (though there it has quite a different meaning).