Religion A question to the Protestant Christians

[Maciamo]

If you believe that Catholic Christianity is wrong (which is why you are not Catholic, and your ancestors made war to death against them for generations), how can you reasonably think that your own beliefs are the truth, as they are only a corruption of what was the only absolute truth in the Western world for over 1000 years ?

To me it sounds a bit like saying that Islam is wrong, that Mohammed cannot possibly have been told by God the words of the Koran, then found a new religion based on Islam.

Christianity without the Virgin Mary, the Saints and the Pope is like baseball played with tennis rackets on a football field. You can't just change the rules that your own ancestors have believed in, or may have died for not believing in, for over a thousand years, just based on some kind of whim, or realisation that "some elements" of the dogma were obviously not true.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Good question and comment, Maciamo! I am very interested in hearing the Xtians' answers here.

What is strange is how all these other denominations, after like you said their ancestors waged violent conflicts to free themselves from Catholic domination, and reject many of their teachings which came from their dogma and sub-intellectual environment, will still refer to the Catholic writings of such people as St. Francis or St. Augustine, etc... to defend certain positions regarding the Bible or Jesus or angels etc... It is like, they don`t want to do any of the heavy lifting but retain the fruits of labor the Catholics did before them and still assert by their decision to not be a Catholic that Catholicism is wrong.

 

[No-name]

SFV, I find it puzzling that you can't type in the entire word and prefer to use an abbreviation that is rather unique. It saves you five letters.

I fail to see why is is strange to you that some Christians refuse to accept the divisions and prejudices based on past differences or at the behest of non-believers. You have enough vinegar by yourself and I have no need of such animosity in my life.

My ancestors were buhdists and they may have helped slaughter the last Christians left in Japan 200 years ago.

I am a Christian, but not a Catholic. When I became a Christian- becomming a Catholic was not required. Neither was hating Catholics or riviving the violent conflicts of our past. I go to a non-denominational evangelical church. There are many areas that I disagree with the Catholic church, but there are also some that separate my beliefs from other protestant denominations or even some larger non-denominational bodies. Homogenity of thought is not a requirement of Christianity. There are many dark chapters of the Roman Church's history, but the Protestant church is not without blemish. There are also many great achievements.

It doesn't serve me to either ignore these darker episodes or to deny the achievements. I can learn from both. Christianity is a narrow path, but definitely has enough room for everyone.

Maciamo- we protestants have not abandoned the Virgin Mary. We still in general hold to the virgin birth of our savior. We believe in saints- in fact all believers are saints. And the pope is a great guy- the leader of the largest Christian denomination. Certainly some elements of dogma were wrong- and I'm certain we probably have gotten other thing wrong now. But do we worship the same God? Do we follow the same savior? Are the basic tenents of our faith the same? I don't see enough of a division to warrant fighting, killing or even flaming in a forum.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't see enough of a division to warrant fighting, killing or even flaming in a forum.

Where have you been flamed? You are mistaking debate, stating one`s opinion and disagreement as "flaming." -- a kind of revisionism, huh?

However, you have encouraged flaming.

 

[No-name]

Actually, I never encourage flaming. The incident you refer to with Reiku I originally thought you handle quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reiku
YOU ARE NOT AN ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST!

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT, SPOILED, HITLER WANNABE!

I hope a pack of wild animals eats you alive, you disgusting waste.


Wow, Reiku! I guess your hope for civility in discussion is a one way street, huh? I was looking forward to addressing your comments and thought you wanted them addressed. Looks like you were just in the mood for a rant, though. So, I will let your comments lay where they are.

It sounded to me like you didn't mind being called a Hitler wannabe very much, and that you had excused, if not forgiven him.

I read his post and let it slide. Asside from that crescendo into ALL CAPS, If you re-read the whole thing you will realize that Reiku shares some personal incidents with some depth and emotional magnitude. I thought they conveyed real emotion and courage. I was impressed by this and thankful for his participation. I don't think he should have used Hitler's name.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I was impressed by this and thankful for his participation.

Oh, yes, and I was impressed by your childish forwarding of a PM to whoever you felt needed it. Perhaps you should understand, the word "Private" in "Private Message" has a particular meaning to it.

 

[No-name]

I didn't think it was childish. I consider certain people friends, and I generally don't say things about them unless they have some chance to respond. The few people I sent it to were those with whom I have developed a relationship and who were involved in the exchange in question. I also informed you (ahead of time) that I was doing this, and you did not indicate an objection...and I have no problem with making something labeled private quite public if I believe another party has a significant interest. I might also share something of this nature in an attempt to get advice on what to do next or how to handle a certain situation. And because I have no idea who you really are, I don't feel that confidentiality has been compromised. No one outside that circle was given that information.

 

[Maciamo]

What about the Pope in Rome ? There have been popes since St Peter, a disciple of Jesus, who was told directly by Jesus to found a church and spread his word (well, at least if you do not doubt the truth contained in the Bible, or that it may have partly or completely invented). Therefore, refusing to acknowledge the pope is going against Jesus' will, and against a tradition that is almost 2000 years old.

To me, it's almost the same to say that "I believe in god but not in the Church or the Bible" (like Deists, who believe in god but not in man-made religion), or say "I am Christian, but I do not acknowledge the Pope and the Church".

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I also informed you (ahead of time) that I was doing this, and you did not indicate an objection

Well, half right.

You told me you had shared it and you were going to. You just didn`t ask me if you could and then wait for a reply.

A question though for any admin which may be looking in: Is it quite ok and accepted as policy by the forum to share PMs without getting their direct approval before doing so? Perhaps it is, since I didn`t see any rule against it in terms of use, but if it is acceptable, then "private" in PM has really lost some of its meaning and respect.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think both branches of Christianity have an equal claim to be the 'true faith'. Catholics because they still have the papacy decended from Peter, and Protestants because Luther's challenge to the Church of his day was justified.

A question though for any admin which may be looking in: Is it quite ok and accepted as policy by the forum to share PMs without getting their direct approval before doing so? Perhaps it is, since I didn`t see any rule against it in terms of use, but if it is acceptable, then "private" in PM has really lost some of its meaning and respect.

SFV, I thought you didn't like going offtopic? But still, I don't think there is a problem with sharing PMs through PMs - they are still private that way. It's only a problem if a PM is posted publically, IMO.

 

[Mamoru-kun]

Where have you been flamed? You are mistaking debate, stating one`s opinion and disagreement as "flaming." -- a kind of revisionism, huh?

However, you have encouraged flaming.

SVF, I'm not christian, nor protestant, nor anything in fact, but here you play the bad guy I think. It -was- flaming. When I started to read Maciamo's post (no offence Mac), even before the end, and even if I am not understanding everything (not being a believer myself), I thought that the way he had written it could make angry any protestant. The problem is that, even amough 10.000 people, if only one get angry with that post, then -it is- flaming IMO. Now I think, regarding that first post, that Sabro answered in a very polite manner...

PS: by the way, no link but, as it's the first time I write to you: hajimemashite

 

[strongvoicesforward]

SVF, I'm not christian, nor protestant, nor anything in fact, but here you play the bad guy I think. It -was- flaming. When I started to read Maciamo's post (no offence Mac), even before the end, and even if I am not understanding everything (not being a believer myself), I thought that the way he had written it could make angry any protestant. The problem is that, even amough 10.000 people, if only one get angry with that post, then -it is- flaming IMO.

And hajimemashite to you, too, Mamoru-kun.

Well, then according to you Maciamo has flamed. To me, I don`t see how his post could be considered such. I don`t think just because someone feels they have been flamed or angered by something qualifies it as a flame. If so, then I have been flamed often already here.

What specifically do you see that I said was "flaming." Please PM me about this because as Sabro pointed out, this is off topic.

Sorry for you perceiving me as the "bad guy." You and others, who are well established in time together here, may, and it is natural, to see newcomers with strong opinions as such. However, it isn`t fair to expect me to hobble my argument by expecting me to cater to others' personal sensitivities other than reframing from using expletives and pajoratives thrown at them. Which I have done neither.
Thank you.

 

[Mamoru-kun]

Sorry about the "bad guy" thing. I used those words because I couldn't find a correct english translation for what I wanted to say. Here I don't consider you as a bad guy at all, but just that I think that your post, regarding what Sabro wrote, was the one capable of turning the thread into an argument.

And about flaming, I only spoke about Mac's post. Yours (the second post of this thread) was less...how to say..."strict" than the one of Maciamo.

Now to explain myself, what I found wrong in Mac's post, without being able to explain it clearely, is that, reading his post, ones (well, at least me) can feel that he is christian, and thinking so, it's far more easy to feel that what he sais is more a flame than a single question. Perhaps am I wrong, but it's the way I felt it. In fact I've had the chance to read a lot of post of Mac recently, and this one is not the kind of post we usually see from him. Asif, when he wrote it, he had had an argument with a protestant some minutes before...

 

[nice gaijin]

That has to be the fastest derailment I've seen of a thread in a while... I'm going to try to avoid addressing most of what I see above, since it seems to have more to do with what happened elsewhere than in this thread.

As for my personal opinion on the subject, I think that dwelling on the rules or intricacies of one religious dogma compared to another isn't a terribly constructive way to pass time, especially since there are so many strong emotions tied into religious beliefs. I find the similarities between seemingly diametrically opposed religions infinitely more interesting than their claims of superiority over one another.

I would like to point out, however, that the founding of the first Protestant movement was not a corruption of the Catholic faith, but rather a reaction to the corruption of the church itself. Some of the later movements were founded to change certain rules or traditions, or to "correct" or expand upon historical points, which I think are more what Maciamo is aiming at here. I am unclear on the point you are trying to make with the Islam metaphor, though. When I first read the post, I thought it was a bit trollish (I think that might be the word you were looking for, Mamoru). For the development of religions as they are today, I think it's important to acknowledge that while traditions and long-held beliefs are important in social structures, their veracity is not guaranteed by the mere fact that they are traditions.

 

[Mike Cash]

If you believe that Catholic Christianity is wrong (which is why you are not Catholic.....

A small point, if I may....I would posit that most Protestants are Protestants for the same reason that most Catholics are Catholics; their parents were.

 

[Maciamo]

A small point, if I may....I would posit that most Protestants are Protestants for the same reason that most Catholics are Catholics; their parents were.

Yes, I was thinking about this. Thanks for reminding me. There are people who follow a religion by tradition (because their family did, and who may not be really convinced about their beliefs, as they may never have really questioned them); but also others who convert to Christianity, change affiliation, or try to convert others because they are deeply convinced of their "truth" of their faith. I want to ask my question the latter category only.

 

[No-name]

I became a Christian in my mid teens. I didn't become a Catholic... but it wasn't because I disagreed with any kind of doctrine or anything. The first church I found that I felt comfortable in, that had the style of worship and teaching that I like and a solid group of people was a Calvary Chapel. (The pastor was an ex-Catholic like my father-in-law. Don't get ex-Catholics started...)

Maciamo- I don't actually find anywhere in the Bible where Peter is made the first Pope, or where the Roman Ecclesia is established. (I think the "upon this stone..." comment refers to Peter's answer to Jesus previous question: "Who do YOU say I am?") The early church seems to be loosely organized and fairly independent and the word "church" does not refer to an organization or building but to the full fellowship of believers.

 

[Bucko]

Maciamo, sorry but your question from the very beginning is flawed. The basis of your arguement is that there was some devine command to set up the current organised government of Catholosism, which, in fact, there wasn't. And it wasn't until the common people eventually realised this that they finally also realised they had been duped all this time, hense the creation of other branches of Christianity (and if you find it hard to believe that so many people can be duped for so long just go back through all your posts about how ignorant Japanese people are). What I find strange with Catholics is how they can accept their rigid, heirarchical organisation, yet their church's founder, Christ, was completely hated and completely opposed in every way this very type of organised religion. But then again, I'm not surprised when you take into consideration basic human behaviour. I guess you could say that Catholics are like the Japanese right-wingers, involved in an old, obselete and redundant organistion, and the protestants/other Christian organisations as the liberal Japanese who are willing to look outside the square called "tradition".

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I guess you could say that Catholics are like the Japanese right-wingers, involved in an old, obselete and redundant organistion, and the protestants/other Christian organisations as the liberal Japanese who are willing to look outside the square called "tradition".

Interesting comment. But, I am not too sure if the analogy fits Catholicism. It does in some respects such as pomp and ceremoney. But, in recent years Catholicism has been quite menable towards accepting evolution and embracing science. They are showing a good degree to evolve with the times. Of course, they still cling to some things such as no marriage for priests, against birth control, but, I wouldn`t categorically say they are turning a blind eye toward looking "outside the square called 'tradition.'"

Nevertheless, interesting post.

 

[bossel]

And it wasn't until the common people eventually realised this that they finally also realised they had been duped all this time

I don't think it was the common people (although this may depend on your definition of common).

I guess you could say that Catholics are like the Japanese right-wingers, involved in an old, obselete and redundant organistion, and the protestants/other Christian organisations as the liberal Japanese who are willing to look outside the square called "tradition".

Since the Catholic church is younger than the tradition most Protestants supposedly base their faith on (Jesus came before the Catholic church), aren't you involved in something older & an even more obsolete organisation (& an organisation it is, no matter on how low a level)?