Hey, I never said anyone’s perfect, including Lenin, although Marxism in theory is more like Christianity than anything done by the Catholic church. I’m reminded by one of the headlines in the Onion’s “Our Dumb Century” book, which condemned the “anti-christian concept of sharing.”
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that the Catholic church has claimed that it’s following the word of Christ and such, but in reality, it’s proving itself to be a bunch of hypocrites. I’m not saying that nothing else is hypocritical, but I just feel that the Catholic church is the worst case. Christ said one thing, the Catholic church does the exact opposite, then says that they’re infallable and therefore Jesus would have wanted it this way, or some similar crap.
Now, Soup, in regards to your post, the little parody you created is different. How so? Well, for one, I’m not talking about all Catholics here, because I’m sure there is a large majority of Catholics who live well. I’m talking about the guys at the top of the church. If, say, members of Congress who enact the laws go out and break them, then it’s different than the random schmuck who does so.
Except unless you’re talking to the remaining Neo-Nazis, you’re not going to find many people saying that they’re happy with what’s happened. Meanwhile the Pope says that he speaks with God, so naturally, anything he has done is morally correct, no matter when.
8:32
And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the
whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
15:4
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Perhaps the catholic church is the most ‘Christian’ of all.
Lemur866, I believe you’re confusing Lenin with Stalin. We could debate whether or not Lenin was justified in doing the things that he did. For many people, though, Lenin remains a man of principle whose actions can be defended on principled grounds whereas Stalin has no such defenders.
Guinastasia and others: I can’t claim to know what lenin (not Vladmir) intended by his/her post. But some of you are clearly taking lenin’s comments as critiques of individual Catholics rather than of the Church as an institution. The Catholic Church is a huge hierarchical bureaucracy: like most bureacracies, it acts to preserve its own interests. IMO its stance on issues like birth control and divorce make no sense in the world we live in today and I don’t believe that Christ would have advocated them.
Biggirl: *“A good Catholic will try to follow the rules just as any other good christian will.” *
Thanks for comments. I suppose that’s where we disagree. What I find most compelling in Christ’s teachings is the idea that rules become corrupt and Pharisaical, at which point it becomes our duty to question and even reject them. If I were a practicing Christian (which I’m not), I guess I would be with Unitarians who believe that Christ was the most perfect human ever, and that the way to be a good Christian is to emulate his example–not to blindly follow rules. It’s in that sense that I liken Marx and Christ and, to a certain but lesser extent, Lenin.
Just to be clear: I have no prejudice against individual Catholics, even religious ones, as opposed to any other kind of people, religious or otherwise. My husband was raised a Catholic and I love him very much. (And if I let him sit down now to rail against the Church, you’d have to miss the day’s baseball and then some )
Sorry, the original Christian Church is the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. It was founded by St. Mark in 64 AD. The original schism of the churches was when the Coptic Orthodox and the other Oriental Orthodox Churches distanced themselves from Catholic doctrine.
Also, investigate the dogma of both churches (this has been done by many through the years) and you will see that the Coptic church follows the Bible more accurately (no Purgatory for example).
These two sentences confused me. I’m no religious scholar and perhaps it’s just that these two sentences are just not scanning right for me, but are you saying that the Orhodox church practiced Catholic doctrine and then split away from Catholic doctrine leaving behind the Catholic part.
BTW, I’ve already conceded the point Orthodox and Catholic Churches being co-originators.
So, Mandelstam, in order to be a good christian you must learn not to follow any rules? Don’t get me wrong. I happen to think that all organized religions a rife with hypocracy. I just don’t think that Catholics are any more (or less) hypocritical than any other religion.
Biggirl: “So, Mandelstam, in order to be a good christian you must learn not to follow any rules? Don’t get me wrong. I happen to think that all organized religions a rife with hypocracy.”
Well then you’ve already answered the question for yourself, haven’t you? That is, when following rules entails hypocrisy it is probably time to desist from following such rules–at any rate high time to question them.
But I wasn’t saying that one “must learn not to follow any rules” to be a good Christian (or a good anything, for that matter). On matters of faith, one should follow rules because one believes in their legitimacy. Depending on the rule in question, one might to do very well to follow it out of habit; or to follow it so as to avoid an unpleasant consequence. But as I understand Christ’s philosophy, one is expected to do right as a matter of conviction.
I just don’t think that Catholics are any more (or less) hypocritical than any other religion *
Neither do I, as I’ve repeatedly said. I’m sure if we put other religious institutions under scrutiny we’d find plenty of the same.
Has anyone reading this thread seen the movie Stigmata? It was a pretty silly movie in a lot of ways, but sort of about this very subject.
The Oriental Orthodox churches are not Orthodox as you think of them (the Eastern Orthodox churches). It is their belief that the Catholic Church split away from them during the first Ecumenical Councils. The Coptic Church is the only church that can historicaly trace back its lineage of Popes to a disciple of Christ–Saint Mark.
Also, the Nicene Creed, which every Church now recites, was authored by Saint Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria for 46 years. And monasticism was born in the Coptic Church, when Saint Anthony (who is acknowledged as the first monk by practically every church and historian) left town and worshipped in the desert.
This is not meant to disparage the Catholic Church. However, they cannot say that they are the true church when their own dogma and traditions contradicted the Christian message throughout history (do I need to even list them). On the other hand, the Coptic Church along with other Oriental Orthodox churches did not change their dogma and refused to tie Church and State together (as the Romans did) and, thus, were not corrupted over the years.
Thanks Mambo for clearing that up. I was confusing the Oriental Orthodox with the Eastern Orthodox. Now I’ll admit it: I’ve never heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church.
Now it’s time for religious studies. My understanding is that the disiples of Jesus went off after he died and started all of the original christian churches. How can one church be more “original” than the other?
I’m not talking about different rites or interpretations as it is impossible to know which is right or wrong since they are all just that, interpretations. My question is: How can any of those original churches lay claim to being the firstest one?
Fight my ignorance. Isn’t it all a huge pissing contest?
Agreed that it was very silly but that bit about the suppressed words was kinda interesting, no? No need to answer if you feel it will only perpetuate Byrne’s trauma!
You asked how one Church can be more original than the others. The fact is, anybody who follows the Word of Christ is a Christian, regardless of the denomination. The Coptic belief is that St. Mark brought the church to Egypt and the other disciples (who had not been martyred yet) started churches in other parts of the world.
The problem is that many of the churches did not make it through history without corruption. This is due mainly to the churches having become interwoven with the governments of their respective countries. Jesus says clearly “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” When the churches did not keep the seperation, the churches became corrupted.
So, how do you know which one is more original than the others? Do the research and see that Coptic Church is the only church to have the same dogma now that it had throughout its history. It has also had an independent patriarch since St. Mark. The Coptic claim is that it is the only church to have not corrupted the message that was brought to them directly by one of Christ’s disciples.
As for which Church is the most truthful–the one that follows Christ’s lessons most purely, of course.
Your losing me here. Jesus was dead he wasn’t there to clarify what he meant. Everything after the crucifixion is pure interpretation.
**
I think the operative word here is “claim”. Every single church claims to be the “true” one and every single churchmember is absolutely sure he’s right.
)