Pre-Vatican II, I’d reckon? If not, point them to the papal teachings of the last 40 years.
I have two ponits of view about it.
- If asked what I disaager with about christianity, unless I thick to the original two flavours, I am told thaty my arguements don’t aply, because on group or another doesn’t hold that view, never mind all the other groups that do.
2.The following was taken from someone else’s webpage , but it sums up my views:
It is a feature unique to Christianity that “heretics” and anyone who did not assent to the official line were persecuted, murdered, imprisoned and otherwise silenced. Despite suffering the same oppression against themselves, the literalist Christians gained the upper hand as they gained the armies and swords of the roman empire, as Constantine converted to literalist Christianity. Gnostics, Jewish Christians and many of the other forms of Christianity were wiped out. Literalist Christianity became the only existing form of Christianity, not by force of truth or by spiritual virtue, but they reigned victorious through the materialistic and Earthly adoption of politics, Roman power, murder and oppression.
Literalist Christianity in this form lasted one thousand and three hundred years until the end of the Dark Ages, where it was replaced by another form literalist Christianity; liberal Christianity. Finally under this new relaxed form of Christianity, Western science was free to overtake Arab and Eastern science. Liberal Christianity could be termed tolerant Christianity.
Do you agree with the above view? If so, basically, most chrisitans groups are successful due to what papists have done, but since you are the one standing on the shoulder of a giant, you would rather I blame the giant instead. Now, I understand you are not a catholic, but I would think that anyone who can talk about what they believe aught to have the background of that positon pointed out to them.
Beg pardon?
Well, YEAH, furt! Post-V2 (or more than ten years post-V2) you’d be hard pressed to find any priests or nuns willing to admit they missed the Counter-Reformation.
I think anyone that would claim a monopoly on the word “Christian” for their sect, is the one that is perverting the teachings myself. I grew up in the age of “liberal” christianity I suppose, and it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus taught acceptance of your fellow man pretty vociferously.
If being asked about the evils of Christianity, it’s pretty difficult not to single out one group or another, because there really is no such thing as “Christianity” they are all essentially cults vying for temporal power, making up their own legalism, and attempting to convince everyone that theirs is the legitimate legalism.
I got this in a spam once:
A cult is a religion without political power.
Erek
Well, I suppose I can pardon you for quoting my entire post when it was right there above yours, since so many other people do the same thing, but unless you take a minute to read it and explain if you disagree, agree, or what, I can’t really sign the order of pardon.
What exactly is meant by this?
I was guessing the poster was refering to Northern Ireland.
What makes me wonder is whenever there is anything christianity-like on tv, such as Easter services, they only show Catholics churches. Never seen any other denomination shown. Better spokesmen?
Thus demonstrating, once more, that you need several more years of good historical instruction before your views will be worth considering on the topic. The whole identification of the eventually surviving stream of Christianity as “the literalist” school is simplistic (and in many ways wrong). The claim that that group alone has been responsible for the persecution of heretics would surprise the many people of most other religious groups, (including the ever-so-peaceful Buddhists), who have been deprived of life or liberty for being on the “wrong side” of a theological debate.
I think that the suppression of heretics has been a continuing source of shame for historical Christianity, but to make the absurd claim that ‘It is a feature unique to Christianity that “heretics” and anyone who did not assent to the official line were persecuted’ is so woefully historically wrong as to invite the utmost ridicule from anyone who has actually studied history.
Re: your first paragraph: I have had several years of book learning, and they all lead me to the conclusion that Ihave expressed.
Re: the first paragraph of my post, which you disgree with in your second post: In the thread on weather or not chrisitanity is unique, I post the same paragraph, and then reposted witht the diclaimer that it is still truue if you add the phrase, "to such a digree, as in christianity.
P.S. I know the above responce anin’t polished, but I felt I had to respond sometime tonight. Better sooner rather than later.
Scott, I’m not forbidding you to form or hold opinions. I am pointing out that when you continue to buttress your expression of those opinions with clearly inaccurate “evidence,” it weakens your ability to persuade anyone to your point of view (and makes you look silly).
Even your disclaimer doesn’t get you off the hook. If you think that the Sunnis and Shi’a of Iraq are living in some sort of fraternal harmony that sets an example for the Catholics and Southern Baptists, you need to do more studying. If you think that the religious strife of Northern Ireland (or even the 30 Years War) was prompted by theological disputes (as opposed to cultural and economic power stuggles in which church denomination was the marker far more than the cause), then you need to learn more history. (And I am not claiming that religion was an incidental phenomenon in those situations, but the reality of the events are more complex than will support your attempts at facile generalizations.)
There are many atheists, skeptics, agnostics, and just unbelievers on this board. You should take the time to read through the various threads on religious strife and the conflict between religions and between religion and non-belief so that you can begin to frame your arguments in ways that persuade your audience instead of moving them to derision.
I fully understand that other religions have done horrible things as well. That doesn’t make it ok. It also doesn’t prove or disprove that the situation were no enabled by religion. In addition, I have read many threads on the subjects, read many books and analyzed the holy books of judaism and christianity and I still see the whole subject as deserving nothing more than derision. I understand that will not move my readers, but I do not see any need to convince them. After all, the atheists and free thinkers here don’t need to be converted, and I have little hope of changing the minds of many here who are religious, not because they aren’t open minded, since they are, but because the version of christianity I see here resembles cherry picking to such a degree, that I find it hard to find anything here to criticize.
P.S. I still don’t see how my evidence is inaccurate, and your statement that my understanding was flawed doesn’t help any.
Tradition. Let’s face it the R.C. church has been in the business longer than just about anyone else and the large organization and top-down hierarchy probably gives it a bigger potential audience.
Better hats.
Catholics form the largest sub-group of Christians in many countries, so perhaps it’s just a case of going with the majority? In the UK I’d expect to see the “standard” Christian television scene coming from an Anglican church. Ditto a Lutheran church in one of the Scandinavian countries.
Couldn’t be Baptist. Any church named after St. Jim Bob would require, for Communion, a keg of Budweiser and Moon-Pie’s.
As far as LDS is concerned, I’d lump them in with every other Christian, in that they believe in Him being the Savior. I only have a basic working knowledge of the Mormon religion and how it’s practiced, so I’m in no position to say what is right and wrong with it. Just seems to be a different path taken to reach the same destination.
Your source made the utterly wrong claim that intra-religious conflict was peculiar to Christianity and you claimed that that summed up your thoughts. I pointed out that that displays a lack of historical knowledge. You did not demonstrate that Christianity is in any way unique, you simply said you had read some books and they led you to that conclusion. Since your conclusion (that perscutions of heretics is peculiar to Christianity–even with the weak disclaimer “to that extent”) is in error, it seems a safe bet that your histoical research was inadequate. Are you now backing away from that position? Or are you simply standing in the middle of the room, digging your toe into the carpet, and claiming “I can believe what I want to believe and I don’t have to prove anything.”? There have been persecutions of heretics (and wars to decide who would be called a heretic) in Islam almost from the day after the burial of the Prophet, in Hinduism for almost 1500 years (until the Muslim and then Christian invasions tended to unite the Indians against the outsiders), even in Buddhism. The bible even records persecution of heretics within Judaism.
I make no claim that religious conflict is a good thing. I simply note that anyone with a knowledge of religious history understands that persecuting “heretics” has occurred in many cultures other than Christian ones, yet you claim that a person who makes the error of attributing all such conflict exclusively to Christianity “sums up” your own beliefs. Then you want to pout when I note that you are not well-versed in history. You claim to object to cherry-picking, but your own posts indicate that you made up your mind about religious beliefs, first, and have since cherry-picked your way through those texts that support your previously chosen beliefs. You are welcome to do so–and I am at liberty to mock you for pretending to have a grasp of history that is still clearly out of your reach. (Again, I am not challenging your personal beliefs; I am challenging your sophomoric assertions about religious history that tend to be “supported” by inadequate historical references or by poorly understood historical events.)
And those Gnostics et all they’ve been lionizing as heroic, peaceful people? The big reason they were suppressed was not that they were dogmatically different, but because they veered towards thuggish, anarchist behavior in the late Roman era and began attacking Christian pilgrims. They laid claim to holy sites and sometimes murdered foreigners coming to them.
Maybe during the news, when mentioning Good Friday, etc., for a moment. But Sunday morning TV does broadcast Protestant (sorry I can’t be more specific) sermons and Billy Graham occasionally will have a primetime special.