Do Unbelievers Know...?

Started by Bat Dude7 pages

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Until Christianity (your religion) is able to face, and except the wrongs that it has done in the past, then Christianity (your religion) is bound to repeat it.

No, unbeliever = less than human.
I am NOT an unbeliever! I believe in BUDDHISM!

Way to go. Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs than Christians. I highlighted some of those differences in my last post. The only thing that ties them together is the names that they use (Jesus, Moses, Mary, Abraham, etc.)

Catholics are the ones who perpetrated the Crusades, the Inquisitions, etc. Not Christians. There has always been a separate secttion of Christianity. Baptists are from this secttion (and thus are not Protestant, which came out of the Catholic Church)

The only thing tying them together is the names.

Uh, no, that isn't what unbeliever means. Here is the dictionary definition of "unbeliever":

NOUN: somebody who does not share beliefs, somebody who does not believe in an established religious faith (courtesy of the Encarta World English Dictionary)

You are an unbeliever of Christianity. Just like I'm an unbeliever of Buddhism.

I love how he thinks the King James Bible is somehow authoritative when all the Biblical Scholars and Religion Professors I've talked to read it to their kids or in the bathroom but laugh when asked about it's accuracy or propinquity to the original Greek/Hebrew.

Bible scholars that trust in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just because they are older? No thanks.

Every modern Bible version, save the King James Bible, comes from the Revised Version of 1881, which derives from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which contradict in so many different places they had to arbitrarily decide which one wins in those instances), which are Catholic manuscripts that get their lineage from Alexandria, Egypt.

The King James Bible comes from the Majority Text (or Byzantine Text) which comes from an ENTIRELY separate line from Antioch

Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity

In name only. Trust me, I was a Catholic for 15 years. I know what Catholics believe...

Originally posted by Bat Dude
…You are an unbeliever of Christianity. Just like I'm an unbeliever of Buddhism…
[/B]

I don’t care about the minor differences in Christianity.

I guess you have never been called an unbeliever. Trust me, it’s not a good thing.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
In name only. Trust me, I was a Catholic for 15 years. I know what Catholics believe...

Good for you. You aren't the only former Catholic here. Catholicism is part of Christianity, whether you like it or not, and you claiming otherwise does not change that fact.

I know what Catholics believe as well, because I was raised Catholic. It's more or less the same as most other Christian denominations.

Incidentally, to be fair on bat dude, there is a huge debate about how to translate the end of 1 Corinthians 6:9, and a strong body of opinion that outright translates it as 'homosexuals'. Of course, this all leads back to the ludicrous nature of taking as sacred something that we don't actually even know what the text should be, but we can at least accept that bad dude was brought up believing that was the meaning.

I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Catholics have COMPLETELY different beliefs than Christians.
😐

If you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are a Christian (gee, I feel like Maury Povich).

IMHO, to say otherwise suggests you value division over unity, superiority over humility.

Originally posted by Mindship
IMHO, to say otherwise suggests you value division over unity, superiority over humility.
So in other words, a Christian. *cue laughtrack*

Originally posted by Bat Dude
So they're all just liars, then?

All 12? 🙄

Did I say liars? No. I said human.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, to be fair on bat dude, there is a huge debate about how to translate the end of 1 Corinthians 6:9, and a strong body of opinion that outright translates it as 'homosexuals'. Of course, this all leads back to the ludicrous nature of taking as sacred something that we don't actually even know what the text should be, but we can at least accept that bad dude was brought up believing that was the meaning.

I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

I wonder what his take on Calvinists is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christians as a group are pretty much the least persecuted people in the world ever.

Said no historian, ever.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
If Jesus was pro-homosexual, why would His apostles, whom He taught directly throughout His entire ministry here on earth, outright condemn homosexuality?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because they are flawed human beings.

Why...uhhh...yes. SC is 100% on target.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

Yeah...he treats Baptists like they are Mormons. 😄

I don’t care about the minor differences in Christianity.

At best, Roman Catholicism is pseudo-Christian. At worst, it is pagan.

Way back in the day, there were three main lines:

1. Gnosticism - An esoteric belief system where you can only understand the Scriptures through "hidden knowledge". They did not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh. They believed that Christ was not a physical being, but an idea. This line can be traced to about 150 AD. Many say the Gnostic views originated with Simon Magnus. It also has quite a bit similar to theosophy.

2. Roman Catholicism - Unlike what they would tell you, the Roman church did not begin until the emperor Constantine, who lifted the ban on Christianity to unite the fracturing empire. Many Christians became lukewarm and formed a hierarchy in Rome under the emperor. During this time, many of the Catholic doctrines were created, the most important being that only the clergy could interpret Scripture. Using this doctrine, the Catholics deceived millions of people, kept the Word of God out of the hands and ears of the masses and led everyone into the Dark Ages.

There is a pantheon in ancient Roman paganism, and there is a pantheon in Roman Catholicism, namely the canonized "saints". The "Christian" holidays of today (X-mas, Easter, Valentine's Day, etc.) almost always have pagan counterparts (Saturnalia, Ishtar, Lupercalia, etc.) They just "Christianized" the paganism.

No mention is made of the title "pope" or "pontiff" in the life of the apostle Peter in Scripture. He was not a pope, despite what they want to tell the world. The first popes were Roman emperors, hence the transfer of the title "Pontifex Maximus" (originally the title for the head of the pagan priesthood) or "supreme pontiff" from the Roman emperors to the Roman Catholic popes.

The Catholic church doesn't even follow the most basic of basic doctrines in the Bible and in Christianity: namely that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

Here's a quotation from canonized "saint" Alphonsus Liguori in his work "The Glories of Mary":
"Listen," Exclaims St. Bonaventure, "listen, all you who desire the kingdom of God: honor the Blessed Virgin Mary and you will find life and eternal salvation." (p. 21)

". . . The designs by which He is able to dispense His mercy more abundantly to us, for desiring to redeem the whole human race. He has placed the whole price of redemption in the hands of Mary, that she may dispense it at will." (p. 37)

"The Glories of Mary" contains the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which are Roman Catholic marks that declare the work to be sound and correct in Catholic doctrine...

We can see that the Catholic church holds Mary on a goddess-like level, something the Bible condemns. Therefore, it is not Christianity. It has more in common with old Roman paganism than Christianity.

It is from the Roman Catholic church that Martin Luther and the other reformers branched off of. While the Reformation was a good time in history (it broke the Catholic stranglehold, and some ended up breaking away from Catholic doctrine completely), many ended up keeping a lot of common ground with Catholic doctrine (such as the Anglican church).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I like the way he associates Protestants with Catholics but not Baptists, as if Baptists suddenly sprang into existence out of nowhere, though.

The Baptists didn't "spring into existence out of nowhere". I mentioned two of the three lines already, now I'll talk about the third:

3. Scriptural Christianity - These were the ones that followed the actual teachings of Jesus. They had, for the most part, remained separate from the Catholic church. There are exceptions of course, but generally they remained out of Catholicism. Many Christians were burned at the stake or tortured by the Catholic church during the Dark Ages. Those Christians were from this line.

The doctrine of the Baptists (for the most part, outside of a few bits of leaven) has been around since Jesus' time. I'm not talking about specific names of denominations or anything of that sort. I'm not gonna say "Oh the Baptists are the only Christians," because I couldn't care less about denominations. Where are denominations in the Bible? They don't exist. Because there are only two types of beliefs according to God: those that are with Him, and those that are against Him. Jesus said as much in the Gospels.

I'm not saying the Baptists are perfect and that they have everything right, but they have a lot right in terms of what the Bible says and what they teach (which is why I personally go to an unregistered Baptist church). And I'm not saying that Protestants aren't saved or that Catholics can't get saved, I'm just saying the Catholic church is more akin to paganism than Christianity and that mainstream Protestantism has a lukewarm bent because of its close association to Catholicism. Ever seen the "Come home" ads by the Catholic church? They aren't just talking about Catholics.

Anyway, I've mentioned in another thread that the Roman empire destroyed a lot of primary source documents about the early Church, and that was done for a reason...

I probably offended the vast majority of the members on this forum with this post, but hey, what can I do? I'd rather offend you with truth than tickle your ears with lies.

This will probably (barring extraordinary circumstances) be my last post on this thread, because I'm a little exhausted with explaining to people who won't listen anyway.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla... ... bla bla bla bla bla... bla bla bla bla bla bla...

FIFY

Now it's more interesting.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
FIFY

Now it's more interesting.

...because I'm a little exhausted with explaining to people who won't listen anyway.

Bat Dude, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Anyway, I've mentioned in another thread that the Roman empire destroyed a lot of primary source documents about the early Church, and that was done for a reason...

Don't forget the library at Alexandria that burned...

And the library of Constantinople that burned.

I cringe just thinking about all the stuff we lost. Stupid. 😠

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't forget the library at Alexandria that burned...

And the library of Constantinople that burned.

I cringe just thinking about all the stuff we lost. Stupid. 😠

We still wound up with curly fries, so I think it turned out alright in the end.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bat Dude, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out.

I never childishly equated your posts to gibberish.

You seemed to have missed out the enormous important area of Orthodox Christianity there, bat dude. There's no point reaching for history if you aren't going to do the job right, and no point talking about Roman Catholics and their foundation without talking abut Orthodox. 'pope', incidentally, comes from the Greek word for 'father', is not related to Pontifex Maximus in any way (aside from anything else, Roman Emperors still had that ceremonial title long after the first Popes of Rome), and needs to be understood in relation to Orthodox Christianity. Roman Catholicism as a distinct entity did not exist until long after Constantine. The whole point of the ideological split between Roman and Orthodox Catholicism is over the primacy of the Roman patriarchy, and that was centuries after Constantine.

The idea that Baptists are part of any form of ancient tradition is laughable- that's just something made up by some Baptists to give themselves some sort of particular legitimacy. They are no different from Protestants in origin; a split-off from an existing structure (mostly from Anglicans). Protestants would make the same claim about them representing essential biblical truth as Baptists would.

Is it just me, or are the most nutty Christians almost always Baptists?

'Baptist' is such a broad term. You have the Westboro bunch on one side, but on the other they are one of the few Christian groups in the UK willing to consider the legitimacy of gay marriage.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
I never childishly equated your posts to gibberish.

But I did tell you time and again that I wasn't interested in the differences of opinion in your religion.