To Be a Christian

[James_S_Saint]

Second, Jesus was a great guy. He was a reformer, he challenged the status quo, treated a prostitute as an equal, etc. You might even say he was liberal I just wish more Christians were actually like him beyond just when it’s easy or convenient.

Well, I’ll go for that much whether they are Christian or not.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You have quite the imagination. I haven’t made any of the assumptions you’ve mentioned. This began when I pointed out to Tony that Church doctrine (what is seen as acceptable by Church officials) has changed over time. The Church executed the Inquisition! Now, the Church confesses that the Inquisition was wrong, and that they shouldn’t have executed it. See how things change?

In short, any person who suggests that ‘the one true apostolic Catholic Church’ (quite the epithet) has “never changed” is lying. Of course it has changed. Do you deny that it has changed?

My apologies, perhaps I didn’t read back far enough (I try). I would agree that the Church changes in many ways as do all living things. I could argue that the CC has never changed on certain specific issues which would more reflect its core or “soul”.

 

[Areopagite]

Yes, but (Rome fell) after Christianity took over. Perhaps it would have endured pagan style. Who knows?

Only the western Roman Empire fell, but that’s because of the non-Catholic barbarian invasions that came from every single angle of Europe, among whom were the Huns, Goths, and Vandals (and the Vikings helped screw things up later on). The Church held on to civilization when paganism was trying to destroy it. The monks held on to even great pagan texts, while the pagans were burning down libraries. Anyway, the Roman Empire is pretty much back on it’s feet now … and it’s called the Roman Catholic Church! Oh yeah!

Have you ever heard the term “common knowledge?” Christians were murderers back in the good ol’ days. Everyone knows this. The fact that you would ask me to produce evidence of something you were taught in middle school shows how stubborn you are. Your. Fellows. Killed. Others. For. No. Reason. Get used to it.

Of course Christians have been murderers. Who hasn’t? Saints and sinners, that’s what composes the Church. For everyone else, there’s the Anglican Church. If there wasn’t any sin, the Church would be out of a job (which would be fine … for the record).

Actually, my post was in accordance with Leviticus. Ya know, that book that has forty or so verses but Christians have conveniently dropped all but the two condemning homosexuality (but death is no longer the punishment)? Why do you think they discarded those rules?

Homosexuality is condemned elsewhere in the Bible (like Genesis 19:4-8, Ezekiel 16:49-50, and Jude 1:7).

Also, many of the rules of Leviticus, unlike the ten commandments, are not part of natural law but were promulgated by God to the Jews for a particular period of time so as to instill in them moral strictness, as was necessary due to their constant disobedience. This is a common phenomenon with any person or group of people when they tend to break the rules … more rules are necessary until they learn the spirit of the law. Jesus, who came to fulfill the spirit of the law, actually says that that the rules of Leviticus (the ones that do not intrinsically pertain to natural law) do not need to be followed anymore. Correct me, any theologians who know this stuff, if I speak incorrectly here.

You have quite the imagination. I haven’t made any of the assumptions you’ve mentioned. This began when I pointed out to Tony that Church doctrine (what is seen as acceptable by Church officials) has changed over time. The Church executed the Inquisition! Now, the Church confesses that the Inquisition was wrong, and that they shouldn’t have executed it. See how things change?

Just because some Catholics (even clerics) DO something, it doesn’t mean the Church has officially said those actions are in accordance with Church doctrine. Has the Church confessed the Inquisition was wrong, though? Officially? I’m not aware. Perhaps there were abuses by individual churchmen (though most of the Inquisitors were not clergy, I believe … I may be wrong). And in any case, I’ve never been convinced that the Inquisition was wrong at all. It fought against Muslim conspiracies that aimed to overthrow the legitimate Spanish government. The Muslims had invaded Spain completely without cause, and that never seems to be addressed. Also, I’ve heard it said by some Anti-Catholics that MILLIONS were put to death by the inquisition, whereas it was only a couple thousand. But anyway, I might be horridly uninformed about this, but I have a feeling many opponents of my position suffer the same condition.

In short, any person who suggests that ‘the one true apostolic Catholic Church’ (quite the epithet) has “never changed” is lying. Of course it has changed. Do you deny that it has changed?

Depends what you mean by “never changed” obviously. It’s changed in some ways, obviously. What ways are you talking about? The claim is that it has never changed its doctrine. We are not denying however that church official can act contrary to the truths of the doctrine. What we DO deny is that the Church has preached contradictory things. When I refer to “preaching of the Church,” I am referring to message preached by the overall episcopate (the bishops and the Pope).

Second, Jesus was a great guy. He was a reformer, he challenged the status quo, treated a prostitute as an equal, etc. You might even say he was liberal I just wish more Christians were actually like him beyond just when it’s easy or convenient.

He also said that He was God.

But yeah if Christians acted like Christ … they might actually be Christian. Doesn’t happen too often. So I don’t blame you for what you say. Fortunately, we don’t have to pretend that Christians are perfect, because we worship Christ and not His pathetic followers. Yeah, that’s right … we’re pathetic.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are you proposing that “to be a Christian” means “to be an errant Christian” as though if any error has been made, then no Christian has ever been true to the real cause?

You have been taught of their errors. Have you been equally taught of their virtues and accomplishments? I strongly suspect not.

Have you been taught so equally of the number and types of maliciousness that have been generated by non-Christians? Are you aware that the Crusades were actually inspired by government (non-Christian) politics over territory rights?

Blessed Urban II called for the First Crusade at the provincial Council of Clermont.​

Some who is beatified is not likely to be a non-Christian. Someone who is a Pope, is very likely to be a bishop - IOW, a Christian pastor of Christians.

Sorry, revisionism on a scale and of a kind that detaches the Church from its history and its personnel, in such a way that men are Christians only when their actions show the Church in a good light (good, that is, to the detachers), is not history.

People who try to make the past palatable to the present seem to forget that while people in the present may well foind something in the past repulsive, that not a reason to suppose the people of the past did. We may not like it that men were hanged, disembowelled, & decapitated for treason in England from 1283 to 1753 - that doesn’t mean that Christians of that period saw any contradiction between being Christian & going to a public execution to watch & hear such a spectacle. We are as callous & they seem to us - but in different ways. Burning women for treason is not something that happens today in England - but it did: it was considered to be more decent. That regicides were pulled apart by horses in France - the last execution in this way was in 1757 - does not make the French unChristian; not unless severity is contradictory to being Christian.

The First Crusade was the crusade that during its journey through the Rhineland massacred thousands of Jews - many of whom were killed despite the efforts of bishops to save them. That was how much regard those faith-filled crusaders paid to the bishops whom they supposedly acknowledged as having authority in the Church. They were hardly an army - more a rag-tag mob.

Is your conception of “what would have been” truly a balance of the reality of life if there had been no effort now named Christianity? Or are you really choosing sides before all of the real evidence has been presented (presuming)?

 

[liquidpele]

Yeah, that’s right … we’re pathetic.

Aren’t we all.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Blessed Urban II called for the First Crusade at the provincial Council of Clermont.​

Some who is beatified is not likely to be a non-Christian. Someone who is a Pope, is very likely to be a bishop - IOW, a Christian pastor of Christians.

Sorry, revisionism on a scale and of a kind that detaches the Church from its history and its personnel, in such a way that men are Christians only when their actions show the Church in a good light (good, that is, to the detachers), is not history.

People who try to make the past palatable to the present seem to forget that while people in the present may well foind something in the past repulsive, that not a reason to suppose the people of the past did. We may not like it that men were hanged, disembowelled, & decapitated for treason in England from 1283 to 1753 - that doesn’t mean that Christians of that period saw any contradiction between being Christian & going to a public execution to watch & hear such a spectacle. We are as callous & they seem to us - but in different ways. Burning women for treason is not something that happens today in England - but it did: it was considered to be more decent. That regicides were pulled apart by horses in France - the last execution in this way was in 1757 - does not make the French unChristian; not unless severity is contradictory to being Christian.

The First Crusade was the crusade that during its journey through the Rhineland massacred thousands of Jews - many of whom were killed despite the efforts of bishops to save them. That was how much regard those faith-filled crusaders paid to the bishops whom they supposedly acknowledged as having authority in the Church. They were hardly an army - more a rag-tag mob.

Contrary to what you see in the movies, there were MANY Catholics who protested what the Church was doing, some who have since been canonized.