It's certainly the most absurd thing I've heard about the Roman Catholic Church, considering the history of Christianity.  I've heard it quite a few times, though.

Mostly on Chick Tracts, but also a few Youtube Personalities arguing Young Earth Creationism.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:33, Thu 30 Sept 2010.

That's the problem with letting people make up their own definitions to words (like Christianity).  It leads to confusion and nonsensical conclusions when applied on a mass scale.  This is one reason attorneys have a "definition" section in contracts and such...to make sure everyone's on the same page with what every word means.

Although I still question what the definition of "is" is.  :)

Dare I ask?  What's a Chick Tract?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP

lunatic fundamentalist preacher with his own line of comics.
makes Fred Phelps look sane.

The one thing I don't get is Protestants who insist that Catholics aren't reall christians- if you really believed that wouldn't you go Eastern or Greek orthodox instead of belonging to a group that splintered from the Catholic Church?

"What are they doing daddy?"
"They're praying to their Moon God, son" - Allah Had No Son

It's hilarious in a sad way.

Jack Chick makes some HILARIOUS tracts about why fundamentalist Christianity is awesome and other things are of the devil. He wrote the great tract on role-playing games called Dark Dungeons you should look up, if you haven't read it before.

Why is Eastern or Greek orthodox correct to follow? Not saying anything against either, but the purpose of splitting off from one group is because you don't agree with them. Doesn't necessarily suggest that splitting from one group leads to a group already split off.

Because the Proestant churches are descended from the RCC (culturally, if not directly - such as the case of Luther and Calvin).

Not just descedant from but decended from after a long period and based on the same theological material. If you check out http://www.beliefnet.com/Faith...istians-Believe.aspx there are some signifigant differences in theology. (like proportional punishment or reward after death, plus the fact that in Easter Orthodox non believers are saved) It isn't like Protestants found new source material or (aside from Mormons and a few other late-protestant groups) claimed new revelation. Protestantism began by a challenge to the institution of the Catholc Church, especially in regards to corruption, not the underlying theology.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:06, Fri 01 Oct 2010.

Here are some reasons why... 1 Timothy 4:1-3
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0436.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

My girlfriend, a mexican-american from El Paso, is an ex-catholic and these things are a big reason why she's an EX.  She's 30, catholic for 25.  With her being a catholic for almost 85% of her life (including catholic school) I'd trust her word.   Plus she has plenty of books and pamplets that the catholic church themselves puts out or endorses which also go against the teachings of the Bible.

AND you were completely right.  I believe it's more damning for a "Christian" organization to be called not Christian.  The Catholic masses have been lead astray by false teacher to unknowingly follow Satan.

This all has to happen though.  Revelation speaks of a "Great Whore" which I believe to be the Catholic church.  Is that so absurd to believe?

Perhaps, but what would be more absurd is to believe that if the Catholic Church has strayed so far for so long that they managed to get all teh other details of their doctrine right to the point that a protestant religion would be something other than the son of a whore, to use the hyperbole that your claim establishes. If the Catholc Church gtot these things wrong while the Orthodox church did not wouldn't it make more sense to look into the Orthadox Church than to cling to a church which is derived from the Catholic?
It's like the Neo-Nazi couple which discovered they are of Jewish descent- your claims and your background are in conflict.

Unless your church claims to have recovered some lost wisdom, restoring what was corrupted.

What church do I belong to Silver?  I forgot ever mentioning my church, but please tell me which one it is.

The Orthodox church and Catholic church are similar in views.  I don't believe is Apostolic succession, as both Orth. and Cath. do.
I believe that the bread and wine are symbols and don't actually turn into flesh and blood, as both Orth. and Cath. do.
Orth. don't believe in the immaculate conception, or original sin, I do.
Orth. believe Mary was an virgin forever, I don't.
I've read some of the deuterocanonicals, but to me didn't feel right.
Orth and Cath views on salvation are too similar for me.
I believe all Christians have only one link to God and thats Christ.  Unlike both Orth and Cath.
I only believe in three sacraments, not seven, like both Orth and Cath.
I believe there is no such thing as purgatory.  An idea I'm sure both Orth and Cath believe.
HERE'S THE BIG ONE!
I believe in predestination.

EDIT: I also believe that during sermons, it is God's will that you speak the language of the people who are hearing you.  Unlike both Orth (Greek) and Cath (Latin)
This message was last edited by the player at 16:21, Fri 01 Oct 2010.

Hmm...


---

Yeah I'm going to have to trust my Chick-y sense and say that yes, yes it is absurd.

By the by, we should really move this to the Catholic thread, if we'd like to continue this discussion. I'll go ahead and bump.

Lets bump. BTW, KI never said anything about you personally American. I just pointed out that it was illogical to assume that a tradition corrupted to the degree those sites suggest can be a vehicle over that length of time for an uncorrupted tradition to emerge from. It's like saying 'sure the soil the tree is planted in is toxicly polluted but the fruit is fine'.

You trust whatever sense you have, I'll trust that feeling which I believe to be the Holy Spirit inside me.  I don't need a "lunatic" cartoonest, or a two panel comic with no dialog to explain itself, to believe what I believe.  I have what's called a Holy Bible.  I use that Bible and if anything I am religiously taught can be is in contrast to what that codex says, than I'm gonna have to side with the Bible.

Christianity was around before Catholicism.  I don't see what I believe to be have emerged from it at all.  I follow the Bible, not the word of man.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:59, Fri 01 Oct 2010.

I think the point is that the "Bible" was developed by Catholics several centuries after the death of Christ.  Therefore, anyone who believes in the New Testament as a complete scriptural record is indebted to the Catholics, particularly because it was the Catholics who decided which books to OMIT FROM the Bible in the Council of Nicea.

Christianity may have existed before Catholicism, but it was the Catholic Church that put the other Christian churches out of business, effectively wiping them and most of their influence off the face of the earth.  So unless you have some sort of "new" revelation or scriptures other than the Bible, every Christian church is in some way a derivative of Cathoicism.

So sorry.. should have refreshed.. didn't see this had all been moved.

Do have to agree that there is a history when it comes to the bible.

Christians have the jews to thank just as much as the catholics.

An interesting thought to consider is that some people think protestants can only track their history for several hundred years. However, the truth is, while the name protestant is only several hundred years, the history of them goes back to the time of Jesus, plus further back as a continuation of the jewish traditions.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:31, Sun 03 Oct 2010.

lets put this in the proper thread instead of cluttering the thread on polygamy with a discusion of christian history. Do we need something besides catholc for protestant lineage/history? I thinki Trust's statement needs  alittle more documentation as to what it means, but I would like to discuss that elsewhere.

On Corinthians matter:

I checked out the blog's explanation, and since yes essentially celibacy could just as well mean bachelorhood as opposed to chastity, it's certainly more accurate.

But the blog didn't really go much into the first verse beyond that, so either they missed it, didn't think it was an issue, and/or agreed that it is better not to touch a woman?

Following the ideas rather than the words of what is written, if it is esentially better to be married than to fall into sexual immorality (such as apparently visiting prostitutes) then if one spouse is insufficient to one's needs would it not be better to have more than one than to fall into such temptation by deficiency?

Of course these were letters to his contemporaries and since Roman law did not allow for multiple souses (though Hebrew law did) once again Roman won out over Hebrew in forming the Christian tradition. (Though to be fair on the topic Romans didn't believe in sexual exclusivity in marriage while the Hebrews did- at least on the woman's part.)

Silveroak, you are hilarious. However, you bring up a good point. I honestly do not know when polygamy went out of vogue with the Hebrews or why. And indeed, there were quite a few changes made to the Bible to make it acceptable to a Roman audience (such as the responsibility of Jews vs. Pilate for the death of Jesus).

This is a key point.  At all times, it must be kept in mind that Paul's epistles were just simple letters to the church.  Although we have canonized his words in the Bible, the evidence is clear that he didn't really mean them to be canonized when he wrote them...and it's even possible he would have reworded some of them had he realized how they would be taken 20 centuries later.

Here's a writing that suggests that Israelites preferred monogamy but simply had to admit the existence of polygamy in certain instances (which is not too far off from the LDS belief):
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/...tid=425&letter=P

I take issue with a few statements.  First, it talks about Adam being only given one wife.  However, in some texts, it is suggested that Adam had more wives, but that Eve was the first and most preferred wife.

He also says the prophets did not live polygamous lives...yet that is contrary to the Old Testament (Abraham, etc.).