Topic awaiting preservation: Losing my religion... (Page 2 of 3)

is your own religion really your own if you don't like it, don't follow it, and don't really know much about it?

chris

Yannah, first off, your question has been awnsered thouroughly. I don't know what someone else could tell you that would FURTHER clear up the differences between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity for you. However, I do wonder why in the hell you're asking us to define your religion? How can you be committed to a faith and at the same time be completely clueless as to what that faith is all about? Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't goto church and hate the tought of it. (The Irony here should be evident to everyone else reading this post, but I thought Yannah might need it pointed out, so I'm pointing it out.) If it was me however, and I wanted to know more about Christianity, the first place I'd start my queries would BE in church.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is, Stop being an ignorant waste of our time, and DON'T tell us what we can and can't talk about.

Well, I don't beleive she ever said anything about being *committed* to her religion.

Being a teenager, I would assume she has been rasied as a catholic, and it's hard to get answeres about catholicism when you're raised catholic (as has been mentioned, the catholic church likes to discourage inquisitiveness)

Now, I don't believe the Catholics discourage doubt or inquistiviness. Where did you get that?
They encourage it. Its what helps faith grow.

Well, the history of the church definitely has periods where doubt wasn't handled too well. I suspect that comes from a little thing called the Inquisition. I agree with you that lately your church has been pretty good on that issue.

And that is not to say that other churches haven't had their abuses. The Reformation wasn't exactly a walk in the park for Catholics.

Ok. If your referring to the current priesthood abuse thing. It was an evil within the church, but does not represent the whole church. Those guys should have never been priest. It was good it came to light. Catholics see it as a cleansing of the church to make it better and stronger. A few bad apples, will not make the institution of the Catholic church fall. In fact, our history is full of scandel. And its usually judged on humans, not the faith that Catholic church stands on. It will be around for another 1000 years.

I wasn't talking about the recent sex scandal. I was referring to the Spanish Inquisition.

And what about the Genecide practiced not only against my people, but most natives of lands 'visited' by the Church?


WebShaman

"a few bad apples"?

And the church sees this as a "cleansing" now?

Then why did the church try so hard to cover it up so long rather than dealing with it initially? And why aren't the priests being de-frocked?

Not to mention things like the spansih inquisition which bugs has brought up...



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-10-2003).]

no one expects the inquisition!

sorry, had to do it...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I get it now...Christians are the people of Catholic, which is the religion.

smacks forehead

I just don't know what to say...

Fig: Hate to burst your bubble, but isn't it: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"?

doh...a blown opportunity. correct you are suho my good man, that's what i get for not sleeping

yannah...*sigh*...no, you're not getting it, sorry. try re-reading what reitsma wrote near the top of the thread. he clearly mentions what the general christian population believes vs what the catholic church thinks and does. they're clearly defined in those paragraphs as two different things.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

to Yannah:

there are many people who label themselves as "christian". "catholic" is just a group of people claiming to be "christian" who label themselves with the name "catholic" because of differences in doctrine. a doctrine is basically a rule or law. "catholics" have a different interpretation of the "rules" than "protestants" or "muslims" or whatever label a certain group choose to call themselves. a TRUE "christian" is not under the "law" because the "rules" cannot "save" your "soul". that part is entirely up to God himself. you can either accept it or NOT. simple.

as far as going to "church" is concerned, there are more people than you might imagine that are disillusioned with the "church" and do not go to "church" for just that reason; that there are so many interpretations. this is why it is so important that you must constantly question your own "faith" in whatever you believe in. seek and you will find.
whatever you do, do it with all your heart.

[This message has been edited by outcydr (edited 03-11-2003).]

Fig, I was wondering when someone was going to bring that up! It's all I could think about when I was typing my reply last night. Now you had better confess before I make you sit in the comfy chair!!!

I am one off those people ^^^^^^.

(sorry for not adding something useful)

"Freedom of speech is by no means freedom to insult others" from the Razorart goodbye letter.

I think the Catholic Church tends to view any Christian group that split with the Church after Martin Luther to be a Protestant church and we Catholics were never raised to treat such matters lightly as this joke shows:

A girl walks in to see the Mother Superior at convent school and says:

"Mother Superior I think when I leave I want to be a prostitute".

The Mother Superior faints and falls on the floor. When she picks herself up she asks the girl to repeat herself and she says:

"I think that when I leave I want to be a prostitute".

To which the Mother Superior replied:

"Oh thank God - I thought you said Protestant!!"

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

do i get a cup of coffee at eleven?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

the protestants are not the only ones who've broken from the roman church. the greek orthodox, russian orthodox, armenian orthodox (and a few others which i don't remember at the moment) broke away, because they see the roman church as having strayed too far from what a truly christian church is/should be.

I think that mentality is very much the normal roman mentality - once they've begun to do something, they are officially the first to have ever done it...regardless of what the reality may be.

In this manner, Rome has borrowed many many things from many cultures, and still somehow managed to convince itself that it was all their idea.

Well you guys forget, you give into rome all the time. You go by their calender & celebrating easter, christmas on rome calender too, You recgoinize St Valentines Day(Real Saint), St. Patricks Day( Catholic Bishop), Hollows Eve(All Souls Holy Day). Even Santa is in remembrance of St. Nicholas, a Catholic Bishop.

sorry?
but that's what they said in tokyoforums.com.

Ah yes, but *you* forget jade, that "Eastre" the germanic deity of spring who visits the earth in the form of a rabbit at - hey! right around easter time! - is not a roman concept.

Christmas, where we honor the sacred evergreen tree that signifies an immortal deity, at the time of the winter solstice, is not a roman tradtition.

St Patrick did a great deal that had little to do with rome.

St Valentine, as you may recall, was a christian who was murdered by the romans for breaking their editcs.

Which of course brings us to the main point: Christianity was not begun in rome!.

Catholicism was *not* the original form of christianity!

Rome used to slaughter christians.

So your statements only further elucidate my point Jade.

Oh, and - the roman calendar? You mean the one julius ceasar had an alexandrian astronomer create? Or the slightly correcte gregorian calendar?

Either way, they are both bastardized versions of the Egyptian calendar.

Again: rome taking someone else's idea and stating it as their own.


{edit - spelling and clarification}





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-12-2003).]

i was thinking the same thing DL. jade, you would recognize that a large portion of what you typed (if not all, tho i'd have to do a bit of research on a few of them) are things that catholocism adopted in some way from the pagan culture when constantine was in charge, correct?

yannah, i glanced thru the answers you got there. half of them make no sense, and a few actually aren't too far off but still have some issues. is there any reason you think that the answers you got there would be more informed than those of folks here? because checking out the level of discussion in general there i'd think we're a bit better informed here on religious issues.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Excuse me. We are talking about Roman Catholicism. Not the Roman Empire.

DL-44

Go read up on who started Roman Catholicism in a history book. A secular history book. It was started by Jesus Christ himself.

so....no responses to my points, just 'go read more pro-catholic propaganda'???

And uh - thank you for informing me of what I meant when I said 'roman'.

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-12-2003).]

DL-44
I am sensing hostiltity.

And just so you will know Constantine gave Christians freedom to practice their faith. He stopped persecuting them. He only gave them a new name "Catholic". In the beginning the faith was called "the way", then christianity.

I will leave someone else to respond to your other statements.

Peace

i'm familiar with constantine, thanks
so are you denying that the traditions mentioned above were adopted into the church from pagan tradition? as far as leaving that for someone else to answer, you're the one fielding the catholic questions here as i understand it

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Hostility? No.

Annoyance? Yes.

Why?

I make a statement regrading what I percieve as the historical roman mindset. You make some points in an attempt to counter the statement. I respond with my thoughts on your points. You then tell me that we are discussing x and not y when x or y were not part of the issue, and tell to read secular history.

That is quite annoying.

Now you will leave someone else to explain your own statements.

So, I really have a hard time seeing what point there is in joining a discussion if you're not willing to discuss the points that you yourself bring up.

quote:

---

Go read up on who started Roman Catholicism in a history book. A secular history book. It was started by Jesus Christ himself.

---

Wait just a second there. I don't think that Jesus Christ started Roman Catholicism as you know it today or as it was in 300AD. The church as it was set up by the Apostles bore little resemblance to the church we begin to see approaching the time of Constantine's conversion.

It has been argued that worst thing that could have happened was Rome to make Xianity the official religion because it became hopelessly embroiled in politics and empire as opposed to focusing on service and charity. Perhaps it was the only way given the circumstances but it's hard to say now that history has been written.

No, this statement

quote:

---

It was started by Jesus Christ himself.

--Jade

---

is just not true...Jesus Christ died, remember? He 'started' nothing, actually, he teached...it was only after his death, that things got 'started'...thus, the status of Martyr. Now, there were people that followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, that were called christians, at the time...'followers of christ'. But they were not catholics. That came much later, actually.

xmas a catholic holiday? only by adoption. because no one knew when jesus was born, when paul (saul) and the priests of the mysteries of mythras got together - they designated the date of the great festival of mythras (december 25th) as the birthday of jesus!

since mythras was of the tradition of the dying god, adoption of jesus himself was easy - he became "the word made flesh" (the word being the the doctrine of the mysteries), mythras was said to have been reborn as jesus! proof of the verity of the mysteries!

so you see, the roman church is just that, the roman church.

Gosh, I am getting you guys all roused up. Am I sheep among wolves? So many reponses.

Thats Ok. I like adversity and confrontation.

But if you guys don't want me to stick around, I will go away.

You are obviously missing the point entirely jade.

This isn't about 'adverstity and confrontation' though you are obviously attempting to push it that way.

This is about one simple thing: if you bring a topic to the table, be prepared to discuss it.

So, I see two options - make your case, or stop bringing up issues that you are not prepared to discuss.

I'm still waiting for any sort of response to my posts....

Jade, instead of mentioning how many responses you're getting why don't you actually reply to the responses? Many people are bringing up valid points but you're just ignoring them. You're coming off as quite stubborn actually. If you want to debate something you have to have an open mind and accept criticisms. When you give a point which is later [bold]proven[/bold] incorrect, it is much better if you admit your mistake instead of ignoring it or confusing the correction with 'hostility'

and Yannah... do you actually read the forums or just post random comments?

quote:

---

Christianity was not begun in rome!.

---

I know, it begun in Spain, am I right?
Catholic began in Vatican City, Rome right?

quote:

---

It was started by Jesus Christ himself.

--Jade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is just not true...Jesus Christ died, remember? He 'started' nothing, actually, he teached...it was only after his death, that things got 'started'...thus, the status of Martyr. Now, there were people that followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, that were called christians, at the time...'followers of christ'. But they were not catholics. That came much later, actually.

---

You're right there Web, even though I don't go to church and don't read the holy bible which is the lectionary, I still know who and who didn't start this religion
I'm attending some confirmation lessons every monday at their local church here in St. Mark.and

quote:

---

Yannah... do you actually read the forums or just post random comments?

---

I do read some posts that I think would add to my knowledge.



[This message has been edited by Yannah (edited 03-12-2003).]

quote:

---

I do read some posts that I think would add to my knowledge.

---

thats why you post dumb comments without knowing what we are talking about.
{{said the pot to the kettle}}

[edit]spelling[/edit]




[This message has been edited by Ruski (edited 03-12-2003).]

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-13-2003).]

Yannah, I am *very* glad to hear you are taking some confirmation classes. You should learn a lot of good stuff in them. You will be able to understand so much better the differences between different Christian traditions when you have a better understanding of your own church's teachings.

So does this mean that you are not confirmed yet? Or are you just taking the classes again?

no, I'm not yet confirmed...because I didn't have time to go before.