How long should a faith carry the weight of their history?

[fultonfish]

Catholic Church and Slavery:

medicolegal.tripod.com/catholicsvslavery.htm

 

[FCEGM]

This is an interesting question. In pondering it, I realized that I’m lucky being an Orthodox Christian because we have no baggage of false prophecies or killing others. . . .[etc.].

Where to start? Here are a some notable examples of “not killing others” taken from Catholicism and Orthodoxy: A Comparison by Dave Armstrong (note that he quotes from Eastern Orthodox historians, such as Bishop Kallistos Ware):

"Yet there had been several similar scandalous atrocities or unsavory, treacherous incidents which occurred before the sack, on the part of the Byzantines, which have not received their due attention. For the sake of fairness and historical objectivity (not polemics and controversy), we will review some of these. Warren Carroll notes:

" ‘Horrible and utterly indefensible as the sack (of Constantinople in 1204) was, it should in justice be remembered that it was not totally unprovoked; more than once (as in the massacre of 1182) the Greeks of Constantinople had treated the Latins there as they were now being treated . . . Historians who wax eloquent and indignant - with considerable reason - about the sack of Constantinople . . . rarely if ever mention the massacre of the
westerners in Constantinople in 1182 . . . a nightmarish massacre of thousands [about 2000 Greeks were killed in Constantinople in 1204, according to secular historian Will Durant], . . . in which the slaughterers spared neither women nor children, neither old nor sick, neither priest nor monk. Cardinal John, the Pope’s representative, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog; children were cut out of their mother’s wombs; bodies of dead Westerners were exhumed and abused; some 4,000 who escaped death were sold into slavery to the Turks.’ {Carroll, ibid., pp. 157, 131}

"Bishop Ware [Eastern Orthodox scholar] also honorably writes about the Orthodox share of the blame in these massacres:

‘Each . . . must look back at the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the human level. Orthodox, for example, must blame themselves for the pride and contempt with which during the Byzantine period they regarded the west; they must blame themselves for incidents such as the riot of 1182,
when many Latin residents at Constantinople were massacred by the Byzantine populace.’ {Ware, The Orthodox Church, NY: Penguin Books, rev. 1980,., p. 70}

"Catholic historian Warren Carroll recalls two other lamentable Byzantine
incidents:

" ‘In 1171, on the orders or at least with the tacit approval of the Byzantine government, thousands of Venetians in the Eastern empire had been killed, mutilated, or arrested and held for years in prison.’ {Carroll, ibid., p. 150}

" [In 1188] Frederick Barbarossa . . . requested permission of the Eastern Emperor, Isaac II Angelus, for passage of his army through Byzantine dominions on the way to the Holy Land, and for the right to purchase food for his troops within them. Isaac said he agreed . . . but in fact Isaac was resolved to oppose the passage of the crusaders, and made contact with Saladin [the Muslim commander] to concert plans “to delay
and destroy the German army.” About this “Byzantine treachery” there is no doubt; even the many modern Western historians sympathetic to Byzantium and hostile to the Crusades have to admit it [e.g., Emperor Isaac, in 1187, had written Saladin to congratulate him for his great achievement of re-taking Jerusalem from the Latin crusaders] . . .

"[Frederick’s envoys, imprisoned for a time] returned to Frederick . . . with infuriating (and accurate) reports of the Byzantine alliance with Saladin, plans to destroy the crusading army as it crossed the Dardanelles, and the violent anti-Western attitude of Patriarch
Dositheus of Constantinople, who had offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a Westerner. Frederick passed on this information to his son Henry, . . . to ask the Pope’s approval for a crusade against the Eastern Empire because of its treachery and dealings with the enemy. No Papal approval was given and Frederick soon thought better of the idea . . . Though a war against Christians was indubitably a perversion of the crusading ideal, Emperor Isaac’s acts against the crusaders had clearly been acts of war . . .

" ‘Everything that the Fourth Crusade later did to Christendom’s discredit, Frederick Barbarossa refused to do, though he was directly provoked as the leaders of the Fourth Crusade never were. The extent of Byzantine provocation of the Third Crusade is obvious from the sequence of events. It would be a long time before anyone in the West would trust them again.’ {Carroll, ibid., pp. 130, 132-133}

“In conclusion, it is altogether to be expected that certain adherents (real or supposed) of both parties in any massive, long-running dispute such as that between Eastern and Western Christianity, will be guilty of serious sin. It has been established that the indefensible sacking of Constantinople was not without previous precipitating events on the part of the Byzantines, scarcely any less evil or immoral. Thus, the “sin” or
“corruption” argument (as with Catholicism and Protestantism) cuts both ways (as is always the case). As such, it ought to be discarded, and ecumenical discussions profitably confined to matters of theology, liturgy, ecclesiology and moral theology.”

 

[FCEGM]

If we turn to the Russian Orthodox Church, we must recall all of the numerous “pogroms” (Church-blessed persecutions) against Jewish and other non-Orthodox within the Russian Empire, which continued well into the early 1900’s.

As for false prophecies, the history of Eastern Orthodoxy is replete with the near-constant embrace of bogus miracles and false doctrines - some of which, to its credit, the Eastern Church eventually rejected, and some of which it still holds to today. E.G., in Jerusalem, the miracle of the “holy fire” which supposedly “miraculously” ignites within Christ’s empty tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on Easter Sunday is known to be a fake. Yet, countless Eastern Orthodox still believe that it’s a miracle because that’s what they are told. The same is true of many Eastern Orthodox who believe in the existence of heavenly “toll houses” which are experienced by souls after death. This is not based on Apostolic Tradition, but on the private visions of certain post-Schism saints.

Then there’s the Eastern Orthodox preoccupation with the cult of Empire (e.g. “Holy Byzantium” or “Holy Mother Russia”), where the Roman emperor or Tsar is acknowledged as the “Christ on Earth” and as the “Head of the Church” …again, not because this is part of Apostolic Tradition, but because Byzantine Christianity was (in large part) the rest of the late Roman “state cult” in which the Emperor was seen as intrinsic to the Church in what, in reality, is nothing but a re-hashed and “Christianized” form of the old (pagan) Roman cult of emperor worship.

So, you would do well to read what Jesus has to say in Matt 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

 

[Xavierlives]

Why are we skewering each other?

 

[dianaiad]

I think every world faith has a time in their history where, as a collective, things did not go exactly as their faith now believes (or practices).

Just a few examples I can think of are
Catholics - The Inquistion
Mormons - Polygamy
Jehovah’s Witnesses - the years 1914, 1925, 1975
Seventh Day Adventist - October 22, 1844
Southern Baptist - slavery
Muslims - extremist terrorism

So with this is mind, I am wondering the following

1. How long should a faith carry the baggage of their forefathers?
2. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when considering converting?
3. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when debating about the religion (even if the faith has renounced the contention)?
4. Are there faiths which has successfully done this?

The answer to number 1 varies; to the proponents of the faith, about five minutes. To the opponents, forever. My answer? Examine that history within the context of the times, accept it as part of that context, and unless it drastically changes the view of present day beliefs, leave it alone. There is no church on the planet that has a spotless history, especially when viewed from outside it.

1. That depends entirely on where you learned about the problematic history from.
2. Only if religion A is claiming that religion B is false BECAUSE of such a history, and religion B also has problems in that area.

4 …‘successfully done…’ what?

 

[peary1]

I think every world faith has a time in their history where, as a collective, things did not go exactly as their faith now believes (or practices).

Just a few examples I can think of are:

Catholics - The Inquistion

Which Inquisition? There were several. And I think John Paul II did enough mea culpas in that regard to erase any or all blather about inquisitions.

Mormons - Polygamy

They’ll never get over it. Besides, the way things are going, polygamists will want their constitutional rights to exist too.

Jehovah’s Witnesses - the years 1914, 1925, 1975

P.T. Barnum quote: "There’s a sucker born every minute."

Seventh Day Adventist - October 22, 1844

Refer to the above quote. But, you have to admit, they are quite healthy.

Southern Baptist - slavery

Southern Baptists? You mean Democrats.

Muslims - extremist terrorism

This has been an ongoing problem for this religion for centuries.

So with this is mind, I am wondering the following

1. How long should a faith carry the baggage of their forefathers?

’Baggage’ will only cease to exist when the people let it go.

1. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when considering converting?

Why not?

1. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when debating about the religion (even if the faith has renounced the contention)?

There comes a time in debate where both parties have to move on.

1. Are there faiths which has successfully done this?

One would think the Catholic Church has been successful at it. Even with all the historical baggage, people continue to convert every single day.

 

[Xavierlives]

On a side note, you mention the Southern Baptists involvement in Slavery - The Holy Spirit, through the New Testament Authors, would have taken the opportunity to state that Slavery is evil and sinful, if it was, rather than outline the proper Christian behaviors for both Slaves and Slave Masters. It is recorded in the lives of many of the early Christian Saints for centuries had Slaves &/or were Slaves.

Well, the Baptist split over slavery. the SBC obviously supported slave ownership. But the SBC never owned slaves. I’m not sure if this was 'taught" as part of their teaching. I’m pretty sure it was more of a membership vote than anything. (That or they didn’t want their buildings burned down).

 

[Della]

Why are we skewering each other?

Are we skewering each other or are we skewering falsity and misconceptions? There is a big difference between the two.

If you see someone is seriously deceived and you wish to help him, do you let him go on being deceived or do you point out the deception?

Apologetics is a very delicate vocation. One must tell the truth, but one must be loving in doing so. There can be no relishing over others having false beliefs/being deceived. There must be an earnest desire to help such souls find their way to the truth through prayer, love, and telling the truth in love.

 

[Xavierlives]

Are we skewering each other or are we skewering falsity and misconceptions? There is a big difference between the two.

If you see someone is seriously deceived and you wish to help him, do you let him go on being deceived or do you point out the deception?

Apologetics is a very delicate vocation. One must tell the truth, but one must be loving in doing so. There can be no relishing over others having false beliefs/being deceived. There must be an earnest desire to help such souls find their way to the truth through prayer, love, and telling the truth in love.

Oh, I love a good debate and I do not fear the discourse that follows. It was not my intent to volley around the history, although some might need discussion for the sake of understanding the problem, but I was hoping more of a reconciliation discussion.

 

[Della]

Oh, I love a good debate and I do not fear the discourse that follows. It was not my intent to volley around the history, although some might need discussion for the sake of understanding the problem, but I was hoping more of a reconciliation discussion.

Well, ahem, you were the one who listed various “problems” from various ecclesial bodies. It’s only natural that people are going to challenge them.

If you wanted to talk about what we have in common, why not just say so without bringing up other questions about “baggage”?

 

[Xavierlives]

Well, ahem, you were the one who listed various “problems” from various ecclesial bodies. It’s only natural that people are going to challenge them.

If you wanted to talk about what we have in common, why not just say so without bringing up other questions about “baggage”?

Yeah, I was only trying to give various examples to spark the debate. I guess if I would have left off the inquistition, I might have avoided it all.

 

[Della]

Yeah, I was only trying to give various examples to spark the debate. I guess if I would have left off the inquistition, I might have avoided it all.

There was some debate about the other things you listed, too, but let’s not dwell on that.

Really, most Christian bodies have much more in common than not, including between Catholics and mainline/Evangelical Protestants. I don’t include JWs, SDA, or LDS because they really aren’t Christian bodies since they deny core beliefs all Christians hold in common.

The thing that most Protestants don’t seem to grasp is they believe many things only because the Catholic Church declared them teachings of Christ, such as the Trinity and the natures of Christ and the canon of the Bible. I think those who are honest need to give the Church its due rather than denying the Church’s contributions to their beliefs. Yes?

 

[dianaiad]

Are we skewering each other or are we skewering falsity and misconceptions? There is a big difference between the two.

If you see someone is seriously deceived and you wish to help him, do you let him go on being deceived or do you point out the deception?

Apologetics is a very delicate vocation. One must tell the truth, but one must be loving in doing so. There can be no relishing over others having false beliefs/being deceived. There must be an earnest desire to help such souls find their way to the truth through prayer, love, and telling the truth in love.

Except that apologetics has nothing to do with the beliefs of *others. * Apologetics is the explanation of one’s OWN beliefs, and the defense of one’s own faith. When you expand into the examination and criticism of another faith, you are no longer being an apologist.

 

[dianaiad]

There was some debate about the other things you listed, too, but let’s not dwell on that.

Really, most Christian bodies have much more in common than not, including between Catholics and mainline/Evangelical Protestants. I don’t include JWs, SDA, or LDS because they really aren’t Christian bodies since they deny core beliefs all Christians hold in common.

(snort) Boy, is that a classic “True Scott!” In fact, I think that fallacy is badly named. It really should be retitled “no true Christian.”

The thing that most Protestants don’t seem to grasp is they believe many things only because the Catholic Church declared them teachings of Christ, such as the Trinity and the natures of Christ and the canon of the Bible. I think those who are honest need to give the Church its due rather than denying the Church’s contributions to their beliefs. Yes?

 

[Della]

(snort) Boy, is that a classic “True Scott!” In fact, I think that fallacy is badly named. It really should be retitled “no true Christian.”

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your references nor what you are saying–no doubt my fault due to my own ignorance.

I do know that LDS do not mean what Christians mean by the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ and other such terms. Since you do not, you are not rightly Christians. You are a non-Christian body of believers in God–not the God we believe in, either. The gulf is too great between LDS beliefs and those of Christians. It doesn’t mean you are bad people or anything silly like that, it’s just the facts.

 

[Xavierlives]

There was some debate about the other things you listed, too, but let’s not dwell on that.

Well, my point is, on a Catholic Forum, most responders have focused on the Inquisition and not the overall issue of whether it is important to maintain a history.

I was also attempting to get to the point that it is the responsibility of others to keep people honest to their history to avoid deception, but that too has been lost.

Really, most Christian bodies have much more in common than not, including between Catholics and mainline/Evangelical Protestants. I don’t include JWs, SDA, or LDS because they really aren’t Christian bodies since they deny core beliefs all Christians hold in common.

The thing that most Protestants don’t seem to grasp is they believe many things only because the Catholic Church declared them teachings of Christ, such as the Trinity and the natures of Christ and the canon of the Bible. I think those who are honest need to give the Church its due rather than denying the Church’s contributions to their beliefs. Yes?

I’d really like to explore this. Are you saying protestants don’t grasp that Catholics canonized the Bible? Really? You think we are that ignorant?

 

[Xavierlives]

(snort) Boy, is that a classic “True Scott!” In fact, I think that fallacy is badly named. It really should be retitled “no true Christian.”

If this wasn’t so true, it would be true.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your references nor what you are saying–no doubt my fault due to my own ignorance.

“True Scott” is a classic fallacy…a false argument. In this case, the classic example is:

“No true Scott drinks whiskey.”
Angus, born in Aberdeen, drinks whiskey,
therefore he is ‘no true Scott.’

Except of course that the thing that makes Angus a Scot is where he was born, not whether he drinks whiskey or not.

When I said that this fallacy should be renamed 'No True Christian," it’s because this is where I run into this fallacy the most: People will decide that someone else is ‘no true Christian’ because they aren’t Trintarian, or ARE Trinitarian, or believe in transubstantiation, or DON’T believe in transubstantiation, or are sola scripturians, or believe in Holy Tradition…it is as if the definition of ‘Christian’ is 'he who believes the same things I do."

So…evangelical protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian. Catholics claim that Mormons aren’t. Four Square revivalists don’t think anybody else is. The entire Christian world consists of groups who, like quarrelsome baby birds, keep trying to push each other out of the nest.

The problem is, “Christian” is not a statement of accuracy in belief. It’s not a statement of the state of one’s salvation. It is simply a classification. Just like a Scott is someone who was born in Scotland, and that’s it, so a Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus the Christ, and by claiming the name, tells people that Jesus is at the center of his or her religious belief system.

It does NOT mean “he who believes the correct thing about Jesus,” If it DID, then I’d be the Christian and you wouldn’t.

It does NOT mean “he who believes the same thing I do.” Because of course then nobody would be Christian.

It does NOT mean :'saved," because nobody would know who a Christian was.

…and we’d have to come up with a different word to classify one of the three large religious systems on the planet, and then everybody would start arguing about what THAT word meant.

I do know that LDS do not mean what Christians mean by the Trinity nor the divinity of Christ and other such terms.

There you go, begging the question of what ‘Christian’ means.

Since you do not, you are not rightly Christians. You are a non-Christian body of believers in God–not the God we believe in, either. The gulf is too great between LDS beliefs and those of Christians. It doesn’t mean you are bad people or anything silly like that, it’s just the facts.

(grin)

Not…exactly. What you have said means that we aren’t CATHOLIC. Nor are we Trinitarians in the same way you are. Since we do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God and our Savior, the second Member of the Godhead without Whom none can be saved, then we are Christian. We aren’t your sort of Christian, but…Christian we are.

 

[Della]

Well, my point is, on a Catholic Forum, most responders have focused on the Inquisition and not the overall issue of whether it is important to maintain a history.

I was also attempting to get to the point that it is the responsibility of others to keep people honest to their history to avoid deception, but that too has been lost.

Yes, this sort of thing happens a lot here. I think it’s just the nature of any public forum.

I’d really like to explore this. Are you saying protestants don’t grasp that Catholics canonized the Bible? Really? You think we are that ignorant?

Oh no. There certainly are Protestants who know this. But, there are a lot who don’t. I was never taught this fact as a Pentecostal. I would think most liturgical Christians have been informed about it, but we see a lot of Evangelicals here for whom it is quite a new idea.

 

[Della]

“True Scott” is a classic fallacy…a false argument. In this case, the classic example is:

“No true Scott drinks whiskey.”
Angus, born in Aberdeen, drinks whiskey,
therefore he is ‘no true Scott.’

Except of course that the thing that makes Angus a Scot is where he was born, not whether he drinks whiskey or not.

When I said that this fallacy should be renamed 'No True Christian," it’s because this is where I run into this fallacy the most: People will decide that someone else is ‘no true Christian’ because they aren’t Trintarian, or ARE Trinitarian, or believe in transubstantiation, or DON’T believe in transubstantiation, or are sola scripturians, or believe in Holy Tradition…it is as if the definition of ‘Christian’ is 'he who believes the same things I do."

So…evangelical protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian. Catholics claim that Mormons aren’t. Four Square revivalists don’t think anybody else is. The entire Christian world consists of groups who, like quarrelsome baby birds, keep trying to push each other out of the nest.

The problem is, “Christian” is not a statement of accuracy in belief. It’s not a statement of the state of one’s salvation. It is simply a classification. Just like a Scott is someone who was born in Scotland, and that’s it, so a Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus the Christ, and by claiming the name, tells people that Jesus is at the center of his or her religious belief system.

It does NOT mean “he who believes the correct thing about Jesus,” If it DID, then I’d be the Christian and you wouldn’t.

It does NOT mean “he who believes the same thing I do.” Because of course then nobody would be Christian.

It does NOT mean :'saved," because nobody would know who a Christian was.

…and we’d have to come up with a different word to classify one of the three large religious systems on the planet, and then everybody would start arguing about what THAT word meant.

There you go, begging the question of what ‘Christian’ means.

(grin)

Not…exactly. What you have said means that we aren’t CATHOLIC. Nor are we Trinitarians in the same way you are. Since we do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God and our Savior, the second Member of the Godhead without Whom none can be saved, then we are Christian. We aren’t your sort of Christian, but…Christian we are.

I only wish I could agree with you, but I can’t. You don’t hold to Christian teachings therefore you aren’t Christian. The word Christian means one who holds to Christian teachings. You are a Latter Day Saint or Mormon because you hold to those beliefs. It’s, as you say, just a label, but it has parameters of meaning. You wish to change the parameters to make your beliefs fit, but they don’t. Those who do not hold to the Trinity are not Christians. They are something else–what isn’t up to Christians to decide. Counterfeit money can be claimed to be the real thing but it isn’t no matter how closely it resembles real currency. If you are content being an LDS, then be one. But please don’t expect Christians to name you what you aren’t just because you’d like us to. We can’t do it because it isn’t true. No harm, no foul.