Well it better be. Raptor Jesus has to have SOME followers…
The OP’s crazy beliefs about other people’s crazy beliefs lack foundation.
Later than what? Not Nicaea in 325. The earliest reference to “catholic church” is in a letter of St. Ignatius around 110. That was 215 years before Nicaea.
Nicaea “invented” or “created” nothing. It settled a few arguments that had been around for years (with both sides publishing their views) and it set an example for the church to follow in resolving future disagreements. It did not suppress dozens of competing sects.* It did not establish either the bible or the New Testament. It did not “create” Catholicism. All those beliefs are published by people who simply have failed to read history.
- Heck, it pretty much failed to suppress Arianism, which was the only serious competing sect with “mainstream” Christianity at the time and the only difference of belief it addressed. The Arians hung on in power in the church for nearly a hundred years and Arian ideas continued to pop up for around 600 more years.
Sure; coming back from the dead isn’t something that happens naturally after all. It turns out, the Resurrection involved lightning and a hunchback.
When was ‘Roman Catholic Church’ coined as the name? what is the etymology of ‘Roman … Church’ ? Or do we know?
Thank you Zoe, you speak from a true heart but possibly a naive one. Not all Christians have the freedom you propose. The threat of hell is a weapon of terrorism and it is pumped down the throats of all Christians. Just as it is for most other religious followers.
For people who only know the New Testament which is a complete contradiction to the promises of the Old Testament they fail to see the way they have been tricked. Having lived much longer than most in here and having witnessed the stuff going on in the world today there maybe a little hostility in my voice about the CC (and its many branches) as it was the one that introduced Christianity to the world.
It is responsible for a lot of the massive overpopulation in the world today based on what it claims God wants. Its people believe they have the right to condemn others and to walk all over them. Women are a target of its discrimination because of where its beliefs come from, the ancient Mother God, Mary, the sun. She was the star of heaven, the queen of heaven and the CC still worship her as those things. Because they are supposedly married to her its priests remain celebrant (in appearances only).
In countries where the CC dominates, such as in Mexico, children are shot as vermin on streets where they live in homeless conditions from very young ages because their families are too poor to look after them. They still pay dues to the church, however, which sends the money back to Rome where the pope lives in a massive palace and the organisations has a bank role of trillions. In the Philippines they live on garbage heaps where the tiniest bit of food is fought over.
In Ethiopia the CC also has a large presence but does nothing to stop the trade in young girls, some as young as eight, who are given as brides to men who are old enough to be their fathers. The babies they bear, usually at puberty, are often born in extreme hardship in grass huts where the girl is isolated and alone. The labour can last for days and result in death of either her, the baby or both. Its not the child that’s important as much as the man’s sexual satisfaction.
The nearest hospital is often days away as there is no public transport or any means to get there except by walking. They may end up with holes in the vaginal walls that sees them bowel and urine incontinent and, therefore, they smell. That means they are no longer wanted by the family they marry into and they then become prostitutes. An Australian doctor has set up a clinic to help them but it can only treat so many cases a year.
The CC is facing a tribunal in Australia right now because of pedophilia by its priests. Thousands of young children have been abused and many have died or committed suicide as a result. This is the same thing as in Ireland and even in the USA. In fact, anywhere where the church operates this is going on. The supreme Cardinal here was caught out lying on TV about his handling of the matter. It’s something that no pope has addressed and there is a claim that the last pope resigned to avoid prosecution.
There are hundreds of such things I could cite here but won’t. If JC was real and did die to save the world then why are these things happening? Why is overpopulation and poverty driving people to hop onto leaky old boats to possibly drown at sea as they flee? Why are things like the Boston bombings, 9/11, the Bali explosions and so on happening whereby thousands of victims are still suffering their effect? Why are some so complacent that they think that by killing others they have a ready made passage to heaven.
Starvation, disease, plagues, climate change, global warming and so on are largely the fault of religious doctrines supposedly delivered by some prophet or other who is now worshipped as God. Yes, maybe I am angry at how people continue to cite quotes from clones of the clones rather than open their eyes to reality. It might also be the real God that is angry and upset enough to dish out some punishment of Its own. Maybe that’s why you had cancer, maybe its why many others lose their children and have other horrible things happening and why the USA is copping a bashing right now.
It might very well be anger that resonates in my voice but it is because of what I know and feel. Darwin’s book was burned by the CC and banned from publication for 100 years. I went to a Catholic school and witnessed the prejudice, discrimination and fear of knowledge for myself It has not changed since.
In English, the Protestants originally tended to refer to the “Roman church” as the source of all that was evil. From that the word “Romish” arose conveying the disdain that a speaker would show for the organization that came from Rome rather than coming from God. The phrase “Roman Catholic” was first coined in English in negotiations with Spain where the delegates wished to be slightly more polite than to use the word “Romish” or refer to the “Roman Church,” but wished to continue to indicate that that institution’s authority was limited by its association with Rome. This occurred in the early 1600s.
If the phrase was used in other languages, it might have had a history based on the following:
It may have evolved over time. The church originally had four Patriarchs in major cities of Christian influence, expanding to five when political pressure mounted to add Constantinople because it was the seat of the (Roman) Empire. All the others were grouped in the Middle East with Rome being the only Western Patriarchate. There were always limited conflicts between the Eastern and Western churches due to the cultures in which they flourished, (with the west coming to be seen as a bit uncivilized after the barbarian invasions and the eventual fall of Rome). The rise of Islam placed different pressures on the Eastern churches while the presence of the institutional church made it an important player in the resurgence of the west. Various theological disputes were inflamed by the political jockeying that involved both the Byzantine Empire and attempts by Charlemagne and others to revive a Roman Empire. When those theological/political disputes finally led to a complete schism, (usually dated at 1054, except that there had been breaks over a hundred years before that and attempts at reconciliation as late as 1439), the church in the east began to identify with the word “Orthodox” (correct teaching) while the church in the west more identified with the word “Catholic” (universal). (Each set of churches will proclaim themselves both orthodox and catholic, but they use those particular labels for self-identification.)
Since the issue of whether Rome had primacy over the other patriarchates was one of the theological issues that divided them, it is possible that “Roman Catholic” arose at that time.
On the other hand, when the Protestants began to break from “Rome” less than a hundred years after the last failure of reconciliation between the east and west, labeling the established church against which they were protesting as “Roman Catholic” would have been a natural way to identify it.
I do not know whether “Roman Catholic” even occurs in other languages, so the above simply provides a potential history leading to its selection. My opening statement indicates its history in English.
I am sorry, but that is utter bullshit. I have no iea why you would even make such a claim.
In 1860, a German synod declared that it could not accept the theory Darwin laid out in On The Origin of Species, but the Vatican never issued a statement on the topic and outside that one synod, there was no Catholic condemnation. You can go to the Catholic Encyclopedia published between 1907 and 1919 and look up both Darwin and Evolution and not find any condemnation of the theory, itself. In 1950, Pope Pius XII declared that there was no intrinsic conflict between the Theory of Evolution and Catholic doctrine.
I have never heard of even “a Catholic church” burning or banning Darwin’s works, but it is simply not true that the Catholic Church banned or burned it.
As is this:
This is weapons grade ignorance.
I’m sure our posters from the Mexico are glad that we now know their children are being shot in the street like vermin, and likewise our posters from the Philippines are glad that the eyes of the world have been opened to the fact that they live on garbage heaps.
:rolleyes:
Is it time to move this to the pit yet?
The Catholic Church has almost no presence in Ethiopia. Less than one percent of Ethiopians are Catholic. The largest religious presence in Ethiopia are the Ethiopian Orthodox, who make up about half the population, followed by Muslims, who make up about a third of the population, and then Evangelical Protestants, the result of missionary work by American Christians, who make up about a fifth.
There is a decent percentage of Catholics in Eritrea (about 13%), thanks to Italian colonization, but Eritrea’s not part of Ethiopia anymore.
In Korean, “Roman Catholic” is “카톨릭” (ka-to-leek) meaning “Roman Catholic” and “Protestant” is “기독” (gee-dok) meaning “Christian”. Yes, there are other terms in the language for both Catholic and Protestant; however, the two I just gave are the usual terms.
Oh, let’s toss yet another fact (not that it’ll do any good, but what the hey) at the OP: the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a much larger Biblical Canon than the Protestants, Roman Catholics, and even other Orthodox churches.
Maybe if you get away from the Catholic sources and get into the right historic records you will see otherwise. It was Pope Pius XII who helped the Nazis escape as well or are you going to tell me that that is not true when there is documented evidence for it. Perhaps the Mafia is also pie in the sky and its members feed on the CC for forgiveness and a free ride into heaven. You might do well to get with the facts with all due respects. It seems that you are probably deeply brainwashed and possibly beyond having any concept of correct history but sometimes there is hope that a light will come on in the darkest closet.
Well, you just godwinized the thread. And you did it in a most disgusting and inaccurate manner at that.
In my readings I read that It was Constantine that called the Bishops to have a council to unite the Christians,( there was various sects at the time) that is why the writings of Thomas who was an apostle, and other writings was not included. And only the Orthodox and Roman churches were considered true Christians. They had to be; One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Yet only 3 of the Twelve’s writings were kept. The Arians were not considered Catholic and that was the decision of the united Church that decided what was of God or not!.
We have just the word of the writers of that time, so what is actual or not is to be questioned.
Your readings are in error. What sects beside the Arians vs the Homousians existed at that time? The Gnostics, the Docetists, the Monophysites, the Manicheans, and others had all made their pitch and been rejected years before Nicaea. The Gospel of Thomas had already been rejected years before. There are lots of Acts and Gospels attributed to several of the Apostles that were never considered scripture. They were written at different periods from the late first century though the fourth of fifth century and were generally known to be pseudonymous works when they were written. Thomas appears to have been compiled some time in the second century, although material in it may be quite a bit older. Any reference to “Orthodox” and “Roman” churches at the time of Nicaea demonstrate an historical error of more than 600 years.
The Arians were considered Catholic–by those who were persuaded by the arguments of that group. That is what the Council of Nicaea was called to resolve: whether or not the Arians were preaching the correct message. They lost that argument in the council. (Of course, they actually persuaded Constantine that they were correct and he, (and his extended family), continued to promote the Arian cause for nearly 100 years more.) The council did not suppress multiple sects. It barely suppressed the Arians.
OK. I leave this thread to you. I doubt that you are persuading anyone with your errors, anyway.
You persistently post silly things that are not historically accurate, then, when called on it, you avoid the topic and post slurs against the RCC that are taken directly from the Far Right Protestant (or Evangelical) playbook. Some of those slurs do have a grain of truth, (often distorted), but many of them are complete fabrications and all of them are off topic for this thread.
Having demonstrated that your claims are generally inaccurate, I see no point in expending more time disproving things that no one else is going to believe, anyway.
I will encourage you, however, to step away from the personal insults. Those are not permitted outside The BBQ Pit.
You misspelled “educated”.
Symbols alone mean nothing. It’s all about context. Yes, the Romans used the cross as a symbol of terror. The Christians reinterpreted it to represent Jesus’ love as evidenced by his willingness to suffer and die on it to redeem mankind. If you want another example of the flexibility of the meaning of symbols to see where I’m coming from, a good example would be the martyrdom of the Imam Hussein in the Battle of Karbala in Shiite theology. Historically, Shiite scholars interpreted his martyrdom to represent the inherent immorality in politics and that it is therefore best to stay out of them. In contrast, Ayatollah Khomeini reinterpreted the martyrdom to represent dying for a good cause, which in his case meant to overthrow the Shah of Iran. Musa Sadr reinterpreted it similarly in Lebanon to help the country’s Shiites achieve greater representation in a political system that gave them less power than their percentage of the population warranted.
Wahahaha…
That is rich, coming from someone whose website holds utter, utter, utter rubbish like this:
Historical facts, get with them!
If it weren’t so funny it would be sad..