Non-Catholics helping or hindering Christianity?

[MH84]

mainly the oldest ones. the beginnings of christianity was wrapped in too much chaos & obscurity. with rampant persecutions & executions, self-declared apostles, gossips, hear-says, feuding-churches, pagan interventions, anything could have happened.

Sounds like some of your posts :clapping:

 

[AgnosTheist]

I don’t think that’s true. This doesn’t justify division, but given our sinfulness it may be necessary–having competition keeps all of us “on our toes,” and since we (all Christians) are sinful and imperfect we may need differing Christians to remind us of the things we are prone to forget.

I was trying to assume a catholic point of view based on what i observed from people here.

As an outsider, I tend to agree with you. America is evidence of that, the diversity of christianity there makes america the most religious rich christian majority nation on earth.

 

[b_justb]

like i said before, i believe that there was a Jesus person that inspired christianity…

I don’t want to hi-jack the thread or go on down Off Topic Lane, so I reckon we’ll banter on another more appropriate thread. 'K?

 

[AgnosTheist]

^ sorry.

 

[Mannyfit75]

and the assessment that the catholic church “converted entire countire” is just false.

Well that is not a true statement. Western Europe, or rather the entire European country was Catholic. Catholic Christian missionaries converted the Germans, Britania, with the likes of St. Patrick. and a whole bunch of others. Even Rome fell, it was the Catholic Church that help convert them.

The Catholic Church also converted most of Latin America. So you are very much in error when you say, "the assessment that the Catholic Church “converted entire countries is false…” is erroneous.

 

[Singinbeauty]

Well that is not a true statement. Western Europe, or rather the entire European country was Catholic. Catholic Christian missionaries converted the Germans, Britania, with the likes of St. Patrick. and a whole bunch of others. Even Rome fell, it was the Catholic Church that help convert them.

The Catholic Church also converted most of Latin America. So you are very much in error when you say, "the assessment that the Catholic Church “converted entire countries is false…” is erroneous.

So EVERYONE who lived in those countries became catholic? And I do mean EVERYONE.

That was the point. There is no group that has converted ENTIRE countries. There may be a main religion but it doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who lives there is a part of that religion…

 

[byoby]

Well that is not a true statement. Western Europe, or rather the entire European country was Catholic. Catholic Christian missionaries converted the Germans, Britania, with the likes of St. Patrick. and a whole bunch of others. Even Rome fell, it was the Catholic Church that help convert them.

The Catholic Church also converted most of Latin America. So you are very much in error when you say, "the assessment that the Catholic Church “converted entire countries is false…” is erroneous.

I think that credit belongs to God, not Catholics or Protestants. If Catholicism or any other religion takes over as the state religion does that mean that it has become a Christian nation?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

If Christianity grows then it is God.

 

[bengal_fan]

So EVERYONE who lived in those countries became catholic? And I do mean EVERYONE.

That was the point. There is no group that has converted ENTIRE countries. There may be a main religion but it doesn’t mean that EVERYONE who lives there is a part of that religion…

thanks, at least some one gets logic. there is no way to show that every single individual turned their hearts to God in a county where the church “converted the entire country” so, Manny, your assessment is very much incorrect.

 

[MH84]

This might be well known to some of you already, but the following can’t be good for Christainity can it. Without the Church there may be only fundamentalism and liberalism in Christianity (of course I have to remind myself that God has the power to do anything, but I thank Him for the Church) :

This is what I view to be a self-imposed ‘reformation’ of Chrsitianity proposed by Bishop Spong of the Episcopalian Church :

These are the “theses” he has posted (i’ve also included part of A Call for a New Reformation) you can read the full article here:

"…My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.

**Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
    So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium."**

This man I can tell is learned and he could be holier and closer to God than I may ever be, but this isn’t the Christianity that I belive Christianity has been since it was formed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s like asking “Are Catholics helping or hindering Christianity?” - the answer’s the same. Not in every detail, but in general at least.

 

[mozart-250]

just plain christians.

This is actually a good answer.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think they’re a hinderance. :twocents:

I don’t think non-Catholic Christians have ever converted a pagan nation like the way Catholics have in the past. So, I don’t think non-Catholic Christians really have a chance to convert non-Christians like Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Hindus etc.

Maybe a read about the men listed below would be informative​

I think Protestants are only really good at converting Catholics. That’s like taking a fish out of the ocean and teaching it to swim in your pool.

OTOH - & in no particular order, there are:​

• John Paton
• • & en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gibson_Paton
• Hudson Taylor
• William Cary
• David Brainerd

byoby:

I think that credit belongs to God, not Catholics or Protestants. If Catholicism or any other religion takes over as the state religion does that mean that it has become a Christian nation?

Exactly To God be all the Glory & to God alone - it’s not as though we could do the slightest good without Him.​