I don't get Christianity because.

[Archmonarch]

I'd just like to add that the only reason Christianity became the major religion of the Western Hemisphere (as opposed to the numerous historical contemporaries who mostly preached the exact same things especially as almost all of Jesus' teachings were derived from the theology of his own religious master John the Baptist) is because Paul went on a propaganda campaign and convinced others to extend membership to pagans. Simply a twist of fate, nothing more.

[Pidesco]

Rant about Catholicism

Blank, I don't think you understand that the Catholic worldview is based upon a Medieval mindset whereas Protestantism is more dependent upon Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts.

 

 

First, I'd argue that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset and not the other way around. Second of all, Protestantism is not more dependent on Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts by itself. In fact, Protestantism as envisioned by Luther, Calvin and the rest, was dogmatically, at least as backwards as Catholicism. While Protestantism did prove to be a lot more conducive to progress than Catholicism, that wasn't due to any doctrinal progressivism on its part but rather, on the fact that they had very little political power and as such couldn't influence goings on as much as the Catholic Church could.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Pidesco

[Dark Moth]

I'd just like to add that the only reason Christianity became the major religion of the Western Hemisphere (as opposed to the numerous historical contemporaries who mostly preached the exact same things especially as almost all of Jesus' teachings were derived from the theology of his own religious master John the Baptist) is because Paul went on a propaganda campaign and convinced others to extend membership to pagans. Simply a twist of fate, nothing more.

John wasn't his 'religious master'. And that's not true. There are a lot of reasons why it spread so fast, not just one "twist of fate".

 

Rant about Catholicism

Blank, I don't think you understand that the Catholic worldview is based upon a Medieval mindset whereas Protestantism is more dependent upon Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts.

 

 

First, I'd argue that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset and not the other way around. Second of all, Protestantism is not more dependent on Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts by itself. In fact, Protestantism as envisioned by Luther, Calvin and the rest, was dogmatically, at least as backwards as Catholicism. While Protestantism did prove to be a lot more conducive to progress than Catholicism, that wasn't due to any doctrinal progressivism on its part but rather, on the fact that they had very little political power and as such couldn't influence goings on as much as the Catholic Church could.

Again, that's not true. Ever here of indulgences? (and that's just one among others) And no offense, but with all the times you've been wrong about these topics, it'd probably be best for you to learn more about this before you start stating 'facts' on the matter.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'd just like to add that the only reason Christianity became the major religion of the Western Hemisphere (as opposed to the numerous historical contemporaries who mostly preached the exact same things especially as almost all of Jesus' teachings were derived from the theology of his own religious master John the Baptist) is because Paul went on a propaganda campaign and convinced others to extend membership to pagans. Simply a twist of fate, nothing more.

John wasn't his 'religious master'. And that's not true. There are a lot of reasons why it spread so fast, not just one "twist of fate".

 

No, Paul stamped out any dissenting viewpoints, particularly the gnostic sects...

[Dark Moth]

Again, no.

[Pidesco]

Indulgences was precisely one aspect in which protestantism was more traditional than catholicism. Indulgences was just one of the things where Luther wanted the church to go back to its more traditional and stricter ways of not selling indulgences. Of course, the Catholic leaders told Luther to go and take a running jump in a lake, and thus a schism happened. Luther was fundamentally a traditionalist, who wanted a stricter, more literal following of Christian teachings, specifically the Bible and Saint Augustine. In fact, both Luther's and Calvin's theology was basically taken from St. Augustine.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Again, no.

 

Sorry, it's historical fact...

[Archmonarch]

I'd just like to add that the only reason Christianity became the major religion of the Western Hemisphere (as opposed to the numerous historical contemporaries who mostly preached the exact same things especially as almost all of Jesus' teachings were derived from the theology of his own religious master John the Baptist) is because Paul went on a propaganda campaign and convinced others to extend membership to pagans. Simply a twist of fate, nothing more.

 

John wasn't his 'religious master'. And that's not true. There are a lot of reasons why it spread so fast, not just one "twist of fate".

 

Actually, it is documented that Jesus was a member of the group that held John the Baptist to be the Messiah before striking out on his own. And again the only real difference between early Christianity and cotemporaneous religions is that Christianity allowed a larger group the ability to join and that it was willing to adopt customs and traditions from other religions (and then thoroughly bastardize them into a 'Christian custom') to make itself more appealing to members of those religions.

 

Rant about Catholicism

Blank, I don't think you understand that the Catholic worldview is based upon a Medieval mindset whereas Protestantism is more dependent upon Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts.

 

First, I'd argue that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset and not the other way around. Second of all, Protestantism is not more dependent on Renaissance and Enlightenment concepts by itself. In fact, Protestantism as envisioned by Luther, Calvin and the rest, was dogmatically, at least as backwards as Catholicism. While Protestantism did prove to be a lot more conducive to progress than Catholicism, that wasn't due to any doctrinal progressivism on its part but rather, on the fact that they had very little political power and as such couldn't influence goings on as much as the Catholic Church could.

 

Again, that's not true. Ever here of indulgences? (and that's just one among others) And no offense, but with all the times you've been wrong about these topics, it'd probably be best for you to learn more about this before you start stating 'facts' on the matter.

 

Who exactly are you responding to here? Myself or Pidesco? I would admit that perhaps I could have stated my point better, as Pidesco is right that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset, though it was equally dependent on the loss of Greco-Roman culture/knowledge. However, despite that it was imagined as a return to roots by its founders, the Protestant faiths could not help but include the changing opinions of their time (the right to question the church, government, etc.), their creators having been raised in such an environment and employing many of these concepts in their disdain for Catholicism. Also, in the centuries immediately following their birth, the Protestant Churches gained a great deal of temporal power, such as the Anglican Church of England, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Archmonarch

[Dark Moth]

Indulgences was precisely one aspect in which protestantism was more traditional than catholicism. Indulgences was just one of the things where Luther wanted the church to go back to its more traditional and stricter ways of not selling indulgences. Of course, the Catholic leaders told Luther to go and take a running jump in a lake, and thus a schism happened. Luther was fundamentally a traditionalist, who wanted a stricter, more literal following of Christian teachings, specifically the Bible and Saint Augustine. In fact, both Luther's and Calvin's theology was basically taken from St. Augustine.

*sigh*

 

Luther wanted a traditional interpretation of the Bible, but many of his teachings are what actually lead to the modernizing of many aspects of the Church. The concept of 'buying forgiveness' is something that's mostly unheard of in today's society, thanks to Luther. In the historical context it's traditional, but back then that was a new concept. Many of his teachings were more progressive, such as his views of women, the taking of spouses for clergy, translating the Bible into the vernacular, the weakening of Church hierarchy, etc. Don't forget the Catholic Church was the only real decider of dogma until the schism, what it dictated was obeyed, and people only knew what the Catholic Church told them to do. How about translating the Bible into vernacular from the Latin? Luther was one of the first to do that after the Catholic Church rose to power, and it even lead to the development of the modern German language. His teachings also sparked the Calvinist movement, which was even more influential than Lutheranism.

 

Again, no.

 

Sorry, it's historical fact...

The gnostic sects and gospels, were widespread and persisted after Paul's death, genius, and it wasn't him alone who was responsible for Christianity's spreading. THAT is historical fact. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Dark Moth]

Actually, it is documented that Jesus was a member of the group that held John the Baptist to be the Messiah before striking out on his own. And again the only real difference between early Christianity and cotemperaneous religions is that Christianity allowed a larger group the ability to join and that it was willing to adopt customs and traditions from other religions (and then thoroughly bastardize them into a 'Christian custom') to make itself more appealing to members of those religions.

My bad, I sort of misinterpreted what you said. Also, what 'contemporaneous' religions are you referring to?

 

Who exactly are you responding to here? Myself or Pidesco? Regardless, I'd suggest perhaps you should look farther than the Christian Bible before spouting your own 'truths.' I would admit that perhaps I could have stated my point better, as Pidesco is right that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset, though it was equally dependent on the loss of Greco-Roman culture/knowledge. However, despite that it was imagined as a return to roots by its founders, the Protestant faiths could not help but include the changing opinions of their time (the right to question the church, government, etc.), their creators having been raised in such an environment and employing many of these concepts in their disdain for Catholicism. Also, in the centuries immediately following their birth, the Protestant Churches gained a great deal of temporal power, such as the Anglican Church of England, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists.

I was referring to Pidesco, hence the reason I quoted him. " Also, I don't take all my facts from the Bible, so please kindly don't spout off that BS about me. That said, I don't see how the rest of your point disproves the fact that Protestantism is just as 'backwards' as Catholicism. Who cares where their viewpoints came from? What matters is that they incorporated those modern viewpoints into their new religions. Also, the Anglican Church didn't come to power on its own, it was formed by a Henry the VIII due to his disdain for the church and so was government-sanctioned. Anyway, my main point is that you can't say that the Protestant faiths didn't introduce new and/or revolutionary ideas to their time.

[213374U]

You talking to yourself, bub?

[Gorgon]

After the renaisance and German idealism the protestant church changed with the times, at least a lot more than the Catholic church. So much so that it became kinda wobbly on all kinds of fundamentalism.

 

Now we have priests who publicly admit they don't believe in god, and a groundswell of support for their rigth to say what they think.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Gorgon

[Archmonarch]

Actually, it is documented that Jesus was a member of the group that held John the Baptist to be the Messiah before striking out on his own. And again the only real difference between early Christianity and cotemperaneous religions is that Christianity allowed a larger group the ability to join and that it was willing to adopt customs and traditions from other religions (and then thoroughly bastardize them into a 'Christian custom') to make itself more appealing to members of those religions.

My bad, I sort of misinterpreted what you said. Also, what 'contemporaneous' religions are you referring to?

 

Well, there were the Cults of Mithras, Cybele-Isis, Sol Invictus, the Mandaeans who worshipped John the Baptist as messiah, the cult of the Roman Emperor, the Manichaeans who were sometimes considered a Christian heresy due to their attempts to incorporate all known religious traditions and the various recognized Christian heresies such as those of Apollonius of Ephesus, the Gnostics, Simon Magus, and Arius. Many of these groups remained in small numbers in later centuries. Any could have become the major religion. Only because the faith that would become Catholic Christianity had the previously mentioned practices and that the Emperor Constantine converted (at least in name, it was said he often confused Jesus and Zeus), feeding off the cult of the Roman Emperor, did things occur as they have.

 

Who exactly are you responding to here? Myself or Pidesco? Regardless, I'd suggest perhaps you should look farther than the Christian Bible before spouting your own 'truths.' I would admit that perhaps I could have stated my point better, as Pidesco is right that the Catholic worldview was the basis for the Medieval mindset, though it was equally dependent on the loss of Greco-Roman culture/knowledge. However, despite that it was imagined as a return to roots by its founders, the Protestant faiths could not help but include the changing opinions of their time (the right to question the church, government, etc.), their creators having been raised in such an environment and employing many of these concepts in their disdain for Catholicism. Also, in the centuries immediately following their birth, the Protestant Churches gained a great deal of temporal power, such as the Anglican Church of England, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists.

I was referring to Pidesco, hence the reason I quoted him. " Also, I don't take all my facts from the Bible, so please kindly don't spout off that BS about me. That said, I don't see how the rest of your point disproves the fact that Protestantism is just as 'backwards' as Catholicism. Who cares where their viewpoints came from? What matters is that they incorporated those modern viewpoints into their new religions. Also, the Anglican Church didn't come to power on its own, it was formed by a Henry the VIII due to his disdain for the church and so was government-sanctioned. Anyway, my main point is that you can't say that the Protestant faiths didn't introduce new and/or revolutionary ideas to their time.

 

My BS as you call it was mostly in retort to your 'learn more before speaking comment' towards whomever it was intended. Quid pro quo. And by explaining the origin of the viewpoints, I have in fact said that Renaissance/Enlightenment concepts were incorporated into the religions, though I had not included examples. Try reading more carefully. And while the Anglican Church was created by Henry VIII because the Pope refused to grant him a divorce, the fact that Catholicism was outlawed in England in favor of a Protestant faith displayed its growing power in Europe.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Archmonarch

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Again, no.

 

Sorry, it's historical fact...

The gnostic sects and gospels, were widespread and persisted after Paul's death, genius, and it wasn't him alone who was responsible for Christianity's spreading. THAT is historical fact. I dare you to prove otherwise.

 

I never said he was solely responsible, so you're now the one placing word into people's mouths... :crazy:

[Dark Moth]

I never said he was solely responsible, so you're now the one placing word into people's mouths... :crazy:

You might not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it.

 

No, Paul stamped out any dissenting viewpoints, particularly the gnostic sects...

You made it sound like he was the one solely responsible, and that he really did "stamp out" dissenting views, both of which are wrong. If that's not what you intended, then you should word your phrases more carefully.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I never said he was solely responsible, so you're now the one placing word into people's mouths... :crazy:

You might not have said it outright, but you certainly implied it.

 

What is implied has no bearing, as different people can read the same statement in innumerable ways...

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...both of which are wrong.

 

Please present some proof to back your claim that Paul didn't attempt to silence the gnostic sects...

[213374U]

...both of which are wrong.

 

Please present some proof to back your claim that Paul didn't attempt to silence the gnostic sects...

You are using fallacious arguments.

[Blank]

He "stamped out" the viewpoints because they were wrong/made-up. As he puts it, they were forgetting the message they first received (the first gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Read Galatians 1:6-25 to see Paul's reasons for his actions. He didn't have an ulterior motive. Hear what he says.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

He "stamped out" the viewpoints because they were wrong/made-up. As he puts it, they were forgetting the message they first received (the first gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Read Galatians 1:6-25 to see Paul's reasons for his actions. He didn't have an ulterior motive. Hear what he says.

 

But Matthew, Luke, John, ext. were written at the same time as the gnostic writings, so I don't see how the reasons stated in the bible can make any sense... :crazy:

[Xard]

 

Goddamnit I need that smile back!

 

edit: WTF woot, it's back! (w00t)

Edited February 2, 2007 by Xard

[Deadly_Nightshade]

^Spam...

[213374U]

^h8...

[Blank]

He "stamped out" the viewpoints because they were wrong/made-up. As he puts it, they were forgetting the message they first received (the first gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Read Galatians 1:6-25 to see Paul's reasons for his actions. He didn't have an ulterior motive. Hear what he says.

 

But Matthew, Luke, John, ext. were written at the same time as the gnostic writings, so I don't see how the reasons stated in the bible can make any sense... :crazy:

Sure, that's when they were written, but the gospels were told audibly to the people before that though. Did you read Galatians 1:6-25? The gospel was preached before it was written down. Like, Matthew could've been walking around telling people what Jesus had said and what happened, then later, when he was going to die or whatever, he had it written down for people to not forget.

[Dark Moth]

...both of which are wrong.

 

Please present some proof to back your claim that Paul didn't attempt to silence the gnostic sects...

Yeah, he attempted to silence and rebuke gnostics. But he didn't stamp them out completely, as your statement implied. You should word your phrases more carefully.

 

EDIT: Hey, they removed the ratings system!

Edited February 2, 2007 by Dark Moth