Topic awaiting preservation: Vatican University Debuts Satanism Classes (Page 4 of 5)

quote:

---

I have posted the historic beginnings of when the Roman church started. You guys just don't agree.

---

I consider myself fairly well educated in this matter.

I have read many books on the subject, some directly, some incidentally, from a wide variety of sources.

What you have posted as "history" has been nothing more than church dogma that attempts to accredidate something that is simply not true.

There simply was not any one solidly existing church before the timie of Constantine. He was a major force in bringing the bishops together in order for them to develop a more unified version of the religion.

The divergences right from the *very* beginning are astounding.

The variances in what was considered scripture have been astounding.

To say that the catholic church has existed since day one is purely silly. Even a dabbling of education in the area verifies that.

Jade -
WebShaman is not saying that the blame lies on 100% of the Catholic population. What I believe he is stating is that if the followers simply go along with what the church leaders tell them to do without question, then they are as guilty as those that lead. If it is as you say per scripture that evil will enter the church, then does responsibility not fall to the follower to be ever-watchful for that evil? If a follower witnesses evil, and does nothing then they simply help perpetrate that evil. This makes them guilty as well. It is difficult to say in the child-molestation scandal how many of the parishners knew what was happening. However, there were many among the clergy who did know and did nothing or perpetuated the crimes by moving violators from one place to another. This was not the case with the witch hunts, the inquisition nor the crusades. The church leaders told the followers that those acts were right, and the masses did not rebel or disagree. This makes them guilty as well. As long as we're throwing about random analogies to place each other in, here is a scenario for you, Jade: If the pope (generic pope here - not specifically refering to the existing one...) were to declare it right and just and your duty as a Catholic to kill all non-believers, including christians who were not Catholic - would you simply carry out this edict or would you question this?

]

Hello MD, Nice to see your post. Have not heard from you in awhile.

I did understand the point being made. I make apologies for this horrible act of the scandal that has been done by some persons, even though I have not been a part of it. I believe in my heart most of the sect, lets say 99.9 percent of the catholic poplulation did not know of this terrible crime. So that being said, we never would have allowed it to continue. Had there been other bishops, priest who knew of it they would have stopped it. Scandal and schisms have long been a part of Christianity from the early ages. But these crimes were and are commited by people. Not Christ and his church.
Why is the institution blamed? Its seems unfair.

[quote]If the pope (generic pope here - not specifically refering to the existing one...) were to declare it right and just and your duty as a Catholic to kill all non-believers, including christians who were not Catholic - would you simply carry out this edict or would you question this?[/quote

It seems like this question should be aimed at some zealous religious who will do anything in the name of God. (Sounds like something a religious extremsist would do) MD. I don't think John Paul would ask this of us. For you to think that he would, or a prior pope of this century would leaves me to wonder about why you would ask such a thing No. My pope would never ask this and I would never kill. Its against the commandments. It would be mortal evil to kill. John Paul is sweet loving embracing person.

DL you remain true to form: Your view of when Christianity started will never change. But its just a view. Not fact. You view is at odds with historic scholars. But that ok if we differ.

quote:

---

But its just a view. Not fact. You view is at odds with historic scholars.

---

No, it clearly is not. It is at odds with church doctrine. I am not interested in church doctrine. I prefer a less biased source of history.

My "view" changes with the evidence. The evidence, and the broad range of scholarly opinion, supports my view.

Sorry you can't accept that...

jade: Moon Dancer specifically mentiond a generic pope which excludes John Paul.

quote:

---

My pope would never ask this and I would never kill. Its against the commandments

---

Such consideration did not prevented previous popes to launch the crusades.

Jade - The question I posed to you was not aimed at John Paul. It was directed as a hypothetical question on your institution and how you as a follower would react. You wouldn't kill because it is evil and against the commandments - but this question is not without precedent. The point is that where you would not do such a thing - there are those that would because the leader of their church told them to. That is the power of blind faith. You ask why the institution is blamed? The institution does not exist without people. I can't name you all of the Inquisitors nor those who whipped up the knights into a frenzy during the Crusades - those are individuals whose names have been lost to time. However, I can tell you that these were members of the Catholic faith, and that these awful events went on for centuries. If the institution were not to blame, then we would not be talking about hundreds of years of murder, fear and hatred. It is the institution which fostered these events. When the Catholic chruch began to splinter it no longer became the sole instigator of heinous acts. The Witch Hunts in New England were not sponsored by the Catholic church but were perpetrated by the Puritans. There is plenty of blame to go around. What you need to come to terms with Jade is that for the greatest amount of time in the history of Christianity, your chruch has been the primary player - and as such has committed some of the worst acts sponsored by the faith.

This does not negate all the awful things that any other religious group through out the course of history has committed. It is simply a fact. And speaking of facts - the "view" of the history of Christianity that DL refers to is the same that I was taught in public school. This is not a "view", it is fact.

You are in total denial Jade.

The offenses were committed by priests/clergy.

The coverups were committed by other prists/clergy...bishops, cardinals and there is no reason to suspect the various popes and other church heads were unaware of what was going on.

The rot is at the very top despite your vigorous denial.

The same stands for the origins of your church, DL and others have proven that time and again here, but it just doesn't suit your clouded version of reality does it?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Just a rectification :
jade:

quote:

---

Out of the billions of followers in the world that belong to this sect

---

First the Christians are ~1 billion, not several billions. Still this estimation is based on the number of person baptized ... and does not take into account the thousands/millions of people baptized without their wise approval or who no longer believe or worse who don't know they can apostatize.

quote:

---

This does not negate all the awful things that any other religious group through out the course of history has committed. It is simply a fact. And speaking of facts - the "view" of the history of Christianity that DL refers to is the same that I was taught in public school. This is not a "view", it is fact

---

.

OK. MD .State the facts as you know them on church history that public school taught you and DL. ANd we will see how we differ in historical fact. You seem to portray a institution of religion as a evil empire out to destroy and massacre. So how can much good come from evil who claim themselves to be christian. Are we all misguided according to your view because of who one billion something of the world population belongs to? I ask this in all sincerity and ask you to make judgements when you have all the facts on both side as opposed to getting a bias view.

Ohh boy...back to square one.

Must we go over again and again and again.......

Jade when will you stop narrowing things down to your black and white, good and evil interpretations?

This is exactly why it is impossible to explain anything to you.

No wonder Etheits called you "a catholic version of Gideon"

quote:

---

State the facts as you know them on church history

---

I've done that many times.

I didn't learn about it in public school, however, I have learned through years of study of history (which obviously must cover the history of the church, given the huge role that it has played throughout history).

How 'bout this:

*you* state the facts that your alleged scholars use to contradict what I have said about the early churches.

And please - leave your insecurities out of it, and stop makin accusations about people's motives!

Jade, merely re-read this and the other thread where you have been shown the truth on numerous occasions with links to various authorities.

Try to do this without the catholic blinders on.

I doubt any of us is very much interested in, as Ruski so aptly stated starting from "square one".

I was going to say from "scratch" but of course "scratch" is and old term for the other myth your faith conjured up, the devil!

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

I will not get my sources from catholic history, just secular history.

MD or DL Lets narrow it down and take the first 500 years of Christianity starting with the death of Jesus. Are you game?

quote:

---

was going to say from "scratch" but of course "scratch" is and old term for the other myth your faith conjured up, the devil!

---

Well, I think all other Christian denominations believe in the devil too Ehtheist. Meaning the Lutherans, CHurch of CHrist, Episcopilians, Presbyterians, Jews, Greek and Russian Orthodox, non-denominations and even the differents sects of Baptists, etc.

quote:

---

MD or DL Lets narrow it down and take the first 500 years of Christianity starting with the death of Jesus. Are you game?

---

Game?

I've talked quite a bit on the subject.

All you've done is say "no, you contradict the scholars"

well? show me...

Don't be so self-centred Jade, obviously I meant xianity as whole.

Ya, it will be interesting to see if she can find some bona-fide secular sources which substantially contradict what we have all provided.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

'We're all entitled to our own opinions.... just not our own facts.' Said someone much wiser. =)

quote:

---

I've talked quite a bit on the subject.

All you've done is say "no, you contradict the scholars"

well? show me...

---

How come I don't remember you talking quite a bit on the subject?. All I can say about you is you point to three subjects. Spanish Inquistions, Crusades and the priest scandal. And maybe alittle about Constantine. Well, is this all you want to discuss? Though these are parts of its history, its not by a long shot all its history. Why don't you show me since your so educated on the subject of the history of Christianity. Lets not pick and choose. Lets start from the beginning. You show me what you have first.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity#Roots_of_Christianity

(Edited by jade on 03-09-2005 08:36)

jade:

quote:

---

Though these are parts of its history, its not by a long shot all its history

---

You missed the centuries till the end of the Middle Age, beginning of the Rennaissance where the uneducated mass had to embrace the RC or be punished by the clergy. This aspect represent about half of the history of the Christianity.

IIRC you have some children, no ? Therefore I'd like to go on the topic of the imposition of faith on others. Have you baptized your children ? do they pray/go to church ? If so, have they wisely approved/asked to be baptized, and do they pray/go to church sincerely or to please/do like their mum ?

[edit] I think you answered my question in The existence of God.... thread, where you don't blush to claim the Christian parents force their faith on their children. [/edit]



(Edited by poi on 03-09-2005 13:02)

Also, under - 19th century, the point - Missionaries and Colonialism is left blank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism

Oops forgot this. Lets read and disuss. OK?

quote:

---

ll I can say about you is you point to three subjects. Spanish Inquistions, Crusades and the priest scandal.

---

I have mentioned the crusades a couple of times. The inquisition *perhaps* once.

Child rape by priests I have talked about on several occasions, yes.

The early history of the church I have talked about a great many times, even back before your 'hiatus'.

And if you don't remember me talking about it, how can you say that "my view never changes" and rail about how wrong I am about it?

As for what I've got?

Some recommended reading, for starters -

Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
by Bart D. Ehrman

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament
by Bart D. Ehrman

Medieval Experience: 300-1400
by N. Claster

Desire of the Everlasting Hills : The World Before and After Jesus (Hinges of History)
by THOMAS CAHILL

The Gifts of the Jews : How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (Hinges of History)
by Thomas Cahill

A History of Private Life: From Pagan Rome to Byzantium
by Paul Veyne

A History of Private Life: Revelations of the Medieval World
by Georges Duby

All very good reading. Will have to recheck my bookshelves for further reading...

The bottom line is, there is simply no way to directly link the organization that is the Catholic Church to the time of the death of Jesus. The gaps, the divergences, the sheer number of variations of christianity all trying to take hold excludes the possibility of one dominant continous legacy of "christianity". There were at least dozens of gospels, there were countless letters, epistles, revelations, etc. There were scores of views on the manner of the divinity of Jesus. On the nature of god. On the means of salvation.

One view eventually, through the works of the councils called by Constantine and his succesors, came to be dominant. A set of books that came the closest to supporting that view was selected to be "scripture". The bishop in Rome came to be considered more important, and eventually became the authority figure we call the "pope" today ("pope" was a generic term for priest, coming from the greek term for father, which came to be used in the modern sense, referring 'unofficially' to the bishop of Rome over time...).

Many of the so called heretical views persisted for many centuries after being declared heretical.

Some even continue today, though certainly twisted far from their roots as well...

Gosh. OK. This is lots of reading here. Are these written by unbias historians? I will check th web.

LOL ^

Interesting link, includes a catholic apologist's quotes, admitting the church did NOT start with the mythical xist.

Is a catholic apologist 'unbiased' enough for you Jade?

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate22.htm

I have lots more Jade.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Wait a minute. I think we will refer to un-bias sources who don't have a beef against rome. Please. . Why would you believe what he as to say. . Usually when one leaves the church there are many different factors invovled. The internet is full of ex-catholics who go against the RC and voice their opinion on why they left the churchh. Why would you think they are true???

Jade -

quote:

---

So how can much good come from evil who claim themselves to be christian. Are we all misguided according to your view because of who one billion something of the world population belongs to?

---

Since when has doing something "good" precluded someone from doing something "evil"? Since when has saving a person crossing the street today given me the right to kill someone tomorrow? NEVER! The church has done things for the betterment of man and for the detrement of man. To not acknowledge the darkness within you will never truly understand the light that can be and SHOULD be within the church and its followers.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 03-09-2005 18:32)

I advocate full and open disclosure when it comes to how things are done in the xian faith. There is no benefit whatsoever in denying the evil that religion can cause. It is like anything else in this world, it has to be used and applied *correctly* for it to benefit humankind.

GD, after reading your last sentence there, I could not help but think of this passage:

quote:

---

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
--1 John 1:8

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-09-2005 19:40)

^Amen, Bugs. I agree wholeheartedly.

Umm Jade, I don't see where the chap quoted is described as having left the church, but rather as a catholic historian.

I suppose the fact he doesn't measure up to what you want to see, could lead you directly to the conclusion he can't possibly be a catholic.

I suppose too, is it foreign to your experience for a catholic scholar to be honest?

It has been suggested you know little of your own faith's factual history.

You prove the truth of this with every post. You also prove yopu are either totally unwilling or completely incapabale of accepting anything but what has been force-fed for lo, these many years.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Who am I? I am a cradle Catholic by birth and Baptism, software engineer/web development by profession, with a B.S. degree in Computer Science from USF (I am now trying to teach myself Game Programming). I was influenced in my early 20's by such noted Evangelical and Fundamentalist apologists as Walter Martin, Norm Geisler, John Ankerberg, Dave Hunt, and later James White, etc. I still enjoy and use some of their Evangelical apologetics (for example, on my defense of the Holy Trinity). In 1992, I discovered Catholic Answers and read Karl Keating's classic Catholicism and Fundamentalism which helped me realize the flaws in some of their Evangelical Protestant (and sometimes anti-Catholic) apologetics. This Rock magazine and the tapes of St. Joseph Communications (Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Gerry Matatics in his glory years) have also been crucial influences in bringing me back to the Church (I am a revert of sorts

---

Etheist. I don't think he is a historian from this bio but reading thru his site, its pro-catholicism. And I was researching seculcar sources. Thanks anyway.

It's important to realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased person.

It's also not in any way helpful to exclude historical writing simply because the author is catholic, former-catholic, protestant, atheist, or whatever.

Each piece needs to be judged on the merits of its content...

I *will* respond in regard to the wiki entry you posted, jade. Just haven't had the time so far.

Focusing on the *early* history is a very good thing I'm pleased we're on this track.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Dodging and ducking Jade:

This is the fellow quoted; http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.st-georgen.uni-frankfurt.de/lehrende/schatz.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKlaus%2BSchatz%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D

This is his quote from my link:

There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament?.

The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter?s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter?s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably "no."?

If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter?s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church?s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)

He is one of you and denies some of your basic concepts.

Who the hell you were describing above I have no idea.

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Focusing on the *early* history is a very good thing I'm pleased we're on this track. : . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

---

Agree..!

cell 799

http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

i know its unrelated to the current discussion and im sorry, but i was inspired by the topic title to do abit of research into satanism in its pretty interesting, they are apparantly not as 'evil' as they seem

'Ssatanism' covers many things. One of them is the completely ludicrous and silly 'church of satan'.

There are also the more serious kind of satanists...

quote:

---

know its unrelated to the current discussion and im sorry, but i was inspired by the topic title to do abit of research into satanism in its pretty interesting, they are apparantly not as 'evil' as they seem

---

picti:


How do you make this assumption? In the Christian belief, anyone who gives glory to evil, is affiliated with evil, is evil. They make a mockery of the Chrisitan God in a subversive way. They call upon the forces of evil, who roam the earth. They decieve their followers into believing they cause no harm.


According to the Christian belief, though there are many ways, forms, structures, and beliefs affiliated with Satan in todays world, there is only one entity of whom they generate from. There is only one devil. And he is the lord and master of evil. He is referred to by many names in scripture. He rules the netherworld with many demons. Per scripture Even Christ called Satan by name and cast him out in his ministry. We make no mistake in believing the evil one has much power. The more evil in this world, the more powerful Satan becomes in the supernatural. For Christians, we have to believe Satan has a sophisticated organized governing structure in how he and his fallen angels operate. His demons are sent to all corners of the world who do his bidding according to their position or rank in his army. We believe Satan is very cunning, more highly intellectual beyond our human minds can imagine and also very powerful. In fact we believe we feed him more power when we perform an evil act. Evil has many faces and penetrates every area of the human life. Even in a Christian church.
We belive, Satan enters and speaks to us even in our dream state to tempts you with lustful desires. Satan has no boundaries. But he does have a time limit. He works feverishly to dominate souls before the Master of Good comes. In its hatred against the Christ, it feels the more souls that can be dominated by evil, that the Power of Good can be overcome. Satan is the " father of decit and lies"
His abyss is full of souls who loved evil and have become one with evil. The abyss's hatred of God grows deeper and deeper because of its eternal judgment in the abyss. They themselves are included in the power of evil. Just as the power of the good souls in the heavenly place helps souls on earth in its prayers for them to do the will of God. So, we do belive the power of good and evil are doing battle on a daily basis in the supernatural. Silly as it sounds, the practices of the "Churchs of Satan" no matter in what degree or form they take are to be taken seriously as powerful forces in supernatural.

*yawn*

Of course, you have physical evidence of all this, right Jade? Just waiting for you to present it.

Any day now.

Funny, I seem to recall reading the devil didn't show up in xian dogma until a couple of hundred years after the alleged death of the figmentive messiah. Even then, they stole the idea from the Babylonians didn't they?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

Well.....no not really.

Its a matter of faith in ones beliefs. Physical evidence is irrevelant in faith matters. I don't profess to have seen the devil personally, but have met some of his followers. I guess you could say I know Satan in way by experience too.

Plus, you have a degree of faith. Everyone has.


I think you and I are similar how we have faith without evidence.

Your indian culture is full of rich mystical beliefs and rituals as far as the supernatural goes. Do you believe them too? And if you do, why? Did you believe the indian dances really brought the rain down. Do you believe in animal power of bear or wolf in how their spirit inhibits tribe members.

Since you yourself are not a scientist and haven't performed any scientific test to prove of disprove facts regarding the nature of world, man, evolution, creation, etc, how can you be sure? Should you test their findings yourself, so you can be absolutly sure? It could be a big conspiracy. They could be giving wrong data. Are you basing your faith on man's ability to reason God out of existence instead of your own ability. And if you are, you are putting your complete trust and faith in man's intelligence, which is limited. So you do have faith. Faith in Man. Remember man has limited use of the brain he owns. He is only allowed to use 10 per cent of it. The other 90 percent is a mystery. I, myself would rather put my complete trust and faith in the one I believe is the designer and dweller of our complicated yet mysterious nature.