@krellin and FlemGem, but it is an old testament practiced used only 3 times in the New Testament and one of those was selecting Judas' replacement and another was *Roman* soldiers casting lots for Jesus robe. That in and of itself pretty much says that God no longer (and maybe never did) support casting lots as a means of making a decision. After the Holy Spirit was delivered to them, casting lots is never again used int he NEw Testament. Why? Because the Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to guide us and show us God's will so there would be no need to cast lots ever again.

@Draug - you're right. They also decided later on that there could be more than twelve apostles, so they probably didn't need to use the lot the first time anyway. Both Matthias and Joseph could have been chosen, since both met the criteria.

Yeah, imagine if they had stuck with 12 to this present day. 12 priests in all the world? Wow! hehehe

Really, Apostles shmostles. Paul was the *MAN*! He coulda kicked the 12's collective arses.

The next Pope should be some Christian-persecuting schmoe that suddenly get's struck blind by divine light.

I won't get into Paul's flaws. IF it weren't for him, priests could get married. But no, he had to go and say "If you are single, I'd rather you stayed single, but if you are married already, be the best husband you can." Fucked it up for the priests *and* for married guys who wanted to live like a single guy.

Oh, sure, blame Paul for priests not marrying. Sheesh, priest could marry for hundreds of years after Paul. Not sure on dates, but it was a long time.

No, I blame the Catholic church for that. But they *use* Paul's writings to support that stance.

And you'll note a little humor in my original post there anyhow. That was intended to convey a toungue-in-cheek approach to my interpretation there of the whole verse from Paul.

Well...to be fair to Paul, the Cathlolic church MISinterpretted Paul (...Big surprise...) He said "it would be better" if you remained single. He didn't say you have to.

The Catholic church actually has a rather piss-poor record of interpretation. You know...praying to Mary (not in there) selling indulgences (not in there) confessing to Priests instead of to God directly (not in there...) and on and on it goes...

And what the hell is wrong with some bloody red meat on Friday? I love to whack-a-cow every Friday now just because!

Agreed 1000% krellin. That was what Luther was trying to fix with the Letters of Reformation. He didn't want a new church, but to try to reform the Catholic church to be more in line with a true and honest interpretation of scripture.

And the Friday fish thing was actually done at the behest of the government and fishing industries at a time when meat was getting cheaper and not the luxury it had once been and the fish industry was starting to fail. Leave it to the Catyholic church to take sides in a capitalist/free market dispute.

"it belies the point that the Catholic church is backwards teaching andhas one of the most corrupt histories of all religions."

Have you read the prophets in the bible? The histories? The Israelite state religion was extremely corrupt. In the gospels also. Not recognizing the debt and history owed to one's predecessor, and worse, criticizing the denomination Krellin doesn't agree with while turning a blind eye to the faults of the Protestant denominations, is academically dishonest. If we are going to ignore the history of the Catholic Church and the debt Protestantism owes to it, we should ignore the OT and the debt Jesus and Christianity owes to it.

Oh, wait, you guys already do that. Nevermind. Carry on.

And Draugnar, before you get your panties all in a wad over whether the Catholic Church has worse sins than the Protestant churches, remember that Krellin is dissing the pope, not pedophiles, in his OP, which is what I am responding to. Further, given a second great debate style debate, I will gladly go toe to toe with you on whether the Protestant or Catholic Churches are more criminal in their current practices. The argument will have to be well defined and regulated. I will not have it here in this thread.

"Not recognizing the debt and history owed to one's predecessor, and worse, criticizing the denomination Krellin doesn't agree with while turning a blind eye to the faults of the Protestant denominations, is academically dishonest."

Moron...there is NO Catholic Church in the Bible. For that matter, there is no protestant chuirch.

If you want me to diss the Protestant Church, I'm 100% game.

If you'd like me to diss you, I'm game too. You assume far too much, but the bottom line, the Catholic church has strayed very far from what the Bible teaches.

As for the prophets, histories, etc...yes, I've read the entire bible a few times, and much of the new testament many times; studied it and wrote about it. I can assure you, the Cathlic church is not to be found within the covers of any Bible.

Actually, dubm, I do recognize the faults of Protestantism, although I hardly think they equate with selling the title of Pope or the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition.

As far as the OT is concerned, many a Jew says Christianity coopted their Torah and that we are usurpers trying to claim any OT heritage. But in the end, I have to say that Jewish "attrocities" are far fewer than Christian ones and Protestant ones far fewer than Catholic ones. The big issues mainstream Protestantism has to account for is putting people like Pat Robertson on the airwaves and letting churched like Westboro Baptist sully the Baptist/Protestant/Christian name with their vile hatred.

You know what amuses me?

People having strident arguments about what particular flavor of superstition they're going to hold dear.

You know the difference between Christianity and Scientology? There is only one. Its that Scientology a more recently invented bullshit story.

But continue your infighting. It amuses me.

Seriously, this is hilarious.

You know what amuses me?

People who think they're smarter than everyone else, but can't tell the difference between scientology and christianity.

Hilarious.

Obvious troll is obvious (but it worked!)...

I've been out of practice at spotting trolls since I muted several of them a couple of weeks back.
That mute button sure did make the forum more fun!

No, they're both made up. Sorry. Wake up and smell reality.

I'm being dead serious and completely in earnest. Your superstitions rank exactly equal in falseness (total).

Krellin, I believe that falls under "straw man fallacy."

Draugnar, I can't decide if your fallacy is straw man, egocentrism, or just poor reading skills.

What falls under straw man fallacy? what the fuck are you talking bout?

And dubm - I did not DISS the Pope in my OP. I set forth a premise and ASKED A FUCKING QUESTION. If YOU thought I was dissing the Pope, that must be because inside you you are disappointed with that particular human being, and I brought these feelings to the surface in you. but pleas explain *precisely* where I "dissed" that particular human being you call the Pope in my original post.

Dubm - *You* brought up protestant attrocities and *you* brought up Jewish attrocities. I merely responded to *your* points. That does not a straw man make.

Krellin, Draug, I'll take your questions/ claims one-by-one, and I'll be sure to use small words so that you're sure to understand. Krellin, we're starting with you.

"What falls under straw man fallacy?"
A straw man fallacy is when person 1 (that's me) has position X and person 2 (that's you, krellin) ignores position X and instead constructs position Y which is similar enough on the surface but is not position X, which I, person 1, hold. You, person 2, then dismiss my position X based on your false construction of position Y.

The position that I asserted and you responded to is two-fold, but neither, I should mention at the get-go, was directed at you. The one position is sandwiched between the other. First, "Not recognizing the debt and history owed to one's predecessor [the Catholic Church], and worse, criticizing the denomination [the CC] Krellin doesn't agree with while turning a blind eye to the faults of the Protestant denominations, is academically dishonest."

The bookends are this: "Have you read the prophets in the bible? The histories? The Israelite state religion was extremely corrupt. In the gospels also. [...] If we are going to ignore the history of the Catholic Church and the debt Protestantism owes to it, we should ignore the OT and the debt Jesus and Christianity owes to it."

What you did was to misread my position, which is rather clear if you read what I wrote. "Moron...there is NO Catholic Church in the Bible. For that matter, there is no protestant chuirch." Where did I claim there was a CC in the Bible? or a Protestant one? I was making an analogy based on Draug's claim that "[Saying that without the CC there would be no Protestant church to cling to is] like saying if it weren't for deadly mold's, there wouldn't be penicillin. While technically true, it belies the point that the Catholic church is backwards teaching andhas one of the most corrupt histories of all religions." My comment about the history of the Hebrew practices, laid out in the OT by the prophets and histories, including the gospels, is referring back to this. My choice of style was to first draw on history, just as Draugnar did, then to reassert that the Protestant denominations are indebted to the CC, then to finish the draw on history by saying that if we ignore one corrupt history (the CC) for the sake of convenience, we should ignore another corrupt history (Jewish priesthood/ state religion) for the sake of convenience. My first post, which had your name at the beginning like so:

Krellin, ...

was directed at you. The second post where I open by quoting Draugnar was directed at Draugnar. You ignored context and you intentionally(?) misread my post to construct your strawman that I had asserted the CC (and the Protestant one, for that matter) were in the bible. That you think anyone could make that error, especially someone who has expressed numerous times on these forums a keen interest and knowledge of the history of that damned text, the languages used, and the literary context in which it was constructed and deconstructed at various times, speaks to your own insecurities. My original claim to you was this:

"If it weren't for the Catholic Church, there wouldn't be a Protestant church for you to cling to."

If you want to discuss that, fine. Don't construct a strawman from a post/ claim that wasn't directed at you and was part of a different line of discussion. You can belittle atheists and naysayers whenever they pick and choose verses of your precious bible out of context, try showing the same respect you expect.

"I did not DISS the Pope in my OP."

"OK...I thought it was, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me..." and the Pope, who --- isn't he like the Voice of God on earth?? -- is too tired to go on?"

It's rather clear that this is a thinly veiled derogatory comment directed against the Pope. If that isn't clear enough, the first post you make in the thread ("[the Pope] is supposed to represent God on Earth...and he quit. Christ never quit. I can't think of any of the Apostles stepping down. One died because he betrayed Christ and the rest became martyrs. But I can't think of a biblical example of someone quitting... It isn't about "rigious-right whiack-jobs" -- it's about what the man states he believes, what the Cathlic religion states as a belief system, and the fact the head dude pretty much just said through his actions, "Ehhh....i don't believe this stuff....the going got tough, and God is too small to carry me through...." If I were Catholic, I'd be pretty disappointed I think. BTW...the Pope IS a religious-right whack-job, if you line up his stated beliefs versus what you would most likely define as a R-R-W-J.") makes it rather clear that you don't think much of the guy. You take several potshots at him here which resonate with your OP.

Krellin, I am done with you in this thread unless you wish to have a rational and reasonable discussion based off of my original claim. Anything I said in another line of discussion that did not involve you will not suddenly involve you.

Now then, Draugnar, "*You* brought up protestant attrocities and *you* brought up Jewish attrocities."

Let me stop you there. Where did I mention either? Before you answer, let me rip you a new one.

"I merely responded to *your* points. That does not a straw man make."

Let's check again what I said the possibilities were: "straw man, egocentrism, or just poor reading skills."

Let's check the conversation history and see which of the three it is, shall we?

"Actually, dubm, I do recognize the faults of Protestantism,"

Where did I say you didn't? I said Krellin didn't. "Not recognizing the debt and history owed to one's predecessor, and worse, criticizing the denomination Krellin doesn't agree with while turning a blind eye to the faults of the Protestant denominations..."

"although I hardly think they equate with selling the title of Pope or the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition."

Ah, really? Martin Luther urged German peasants to rebel, but he switched sides and then urged the Northern German princes to massacre the peasants. There is good reason for this change. Luther knew that the Northern German princes were protecting him, and for Luther to be accused of aiding and abetting the peasants would be fatal to him.

King Henry VIII is responsible for the deaths of over 70,000 Catholics including hundreds of priests and Bishops. He had St. Thomas More executed in 1535. He even ordered the destruction of most of the uncorrupted bodies of saints in England. The only bodies that were not destroyed are the ones taken by Catholics and hidden from the persecutors.

John Calvin, one of the Protestant reformers, viciously persecuted Catholics as heretics. He persecuted others as well, and had a rival critic, Michael Servetus, burned alive in October 1553.

Queen Elizabeth I, had thousands of Catholics put to death in England. She ordered that Catholic Mary Queen of Scots be executed in 1587. She had thousands more killed in Ireland.

Oliver Cromwell is responsible for starting the English civil war and the subsequent beheading of Catholic King Charles I, and for the killing of thousands of Catholics in that war of 1642-1649. Some Catholics were nailed to trees.

Thousands of Catholics were murdered in Ireland by the English in the 19th century simply because they attended the Catholic Mass. The Protestant English redcoats were also responsible for confiscating the food from the Irish people and for leaving them only with potatoes which were blighted and unfit to eat. In the mid 19th century this caused the deaths by starvation of an estimated 1-1.5 million Irish Catholics, and the emigration of about 2 million more. It was a case of either leave the country or die of starvation.

How many thousands of women were burned at the stake after witch trials, by Protestant witch hunters, over several centuries, and throughout Europe and America? It is estimated that 30,000 went to their deaths in Britain alone, and another 100,000 in Protestant Germany. Interestingly, the Protestant mind-set in those times was that if the woman survived the burning, she was considered not to be a witch. Now just how many innocent women, do you think, survived this horror?

Protestants and Catholics alike hated the Anabaptists and persecuted and murdered them relentlessly.

That's not even mentioning the modern atrocities, such as abortion clinic bombings, Manifest Destiny, slavery, the Iraq War (Rumsfeld littered reports and briefings for President Bush with biblical quotes leading up to the war: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html#axzz2KlPoUf2w), and opposition to human rights (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc). I could go on if we were having this debate in this thread, but we're not. We can have this debate elsewhere in a well defined and regulated debate setting. Protestants are no better than Catholics, but Catholics do have a 1500 year jump on the Protestants in making gross lapses of judgment in human decency.

"I have to say that Jewish "attrocities""

Wait, when did I bring up Jewish atrocities? I thought we were talking about corruption. Let me check....

""it belies the point that the Catholic church is backwards teaching andhas one of the most corrupt histories of all religions."

Have you read the prophets in the bible? The histories? The Israelite state religion was extremely corrupt."

Hm, curious. We /were/ talking about corruption! I'd dig up an exhaustive list of examples, but I'd be posting nearly whole books of the bible, which I presume you believe to be true based on your other posts and I also presume you've read, and so it would be less than profitable for me to do so at this junction.

"Protestant ones far fewer than Catholic ones."

Only if you include the history. Notice that I said "current" practices. Check it: "given a second great debate style debate, I will gladly go toe to toe with you on whether the Protestant or Catholic Churches are more criminal in their current practices."

And at this point, I /still/ cannot decide if you're constructing straw man arguments, just really egocentric, or have poor reading skills. Are you satisfied now, you overgrown bully? Even you are not above using "faggot" as a derogatory term, one I've seen you give hell to other users about, and yet, you use it yourself. Check it: http://imgur.com/bz2qZ.png

I'll leave you with two more, http://i.imgur.com/utyvx.png. Your quotes. I'd dig up the threads I pulled 'em from, but I could just open any ol' thread you post in, so I'll forgo that effort too. I'm done with you until you want to have a real debate instead of your silly arrogant posts that amount to a hill of beans. Honestly, every time you post these days it just seems like an http://i.imgur.com/iEK4q.png.

Blah blah blah. I didn't read your diatribe past the first couple sentences because it's meaningless.

**The Catholic Church is a complete perversion of the teaching of God.**

There is a Church established in the book of Acts, and it looks *nothing* like the Catholic Church. I don't thank the Catholic church for *anything*...unless you want to talk about the decades and centuries that people were held in ignorance of the truth by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church did not teach people the Bible, they held mass in foreign languages and kept the scripture to themselves. They used God as a weapon to keep people under control through fear, as opposed to giving the word of God to people as a gift.

I ignored your point about the "gift" of the Catholic Church because it's a bullshit lie built upon your apparent brainwashing by the Church, coupled with your apparent ignorance of what the Church in the Bible actually looks like and how a Biblical Church functions.

You can recite the world history of the Cathloic Church to me, and I will see it as simply a tragedy of Christian belief, centuries of souls blinded from the truth as they were taught lies and instilled with fear so a few wicked men could maintain their political power.

@ Jack - I'm unclear, are you arguing against the historicity of Jesus, Paul, Peter, et al, or merely arguing that the idea of god is made up?

Perhaps you don't consider that to be an important distinction, but the disctinction in my mind is that Christianity is rooted in real experiences of real and earnest people in real history, while Scientology was invented out of whole cloth for cynical purposes by L. Ron Hubbard. That seems to me a substantive difference, which makes your statement that they are both "made up" sound ignorant and silly.

@FlemGem
Jack is just a bigoted anti-theist with an agenda full stop. If you asked him who said this: "The economy doesn't function with market self-regulation, but needs an ethical rationale to work for mankind”, he would probably answer with ''The Flying Spaghetti Monster'' or ''Luke Skywalker''. I once asked him directly if he believed in anything at all and, if so, why. The silence in response was deafening.

@dubm - I will accept my bpart in the blame for misunderstanding what you wrote. You were evidently only referring to current flaws of pretestantism while demanding we respect the origins (history) of same. Can't blame a guy for getting confused when you keep jumping back and forth between past sins and present sins.

But if you wish to discuss present sins only... Where are the Lutheran pedophiles (the largest protestant denomination world wide) and where are the Catholic female priests (Lutherans have them) and where are the gay priests (again, Lutherans have them). Protestantism in toto is larger than Catholicism and more diverse, so it is hard to pin sins on protestantism and I accept that this makes it an unfair comparison. There are plenty of protestant faiths with serious flaws worse than the Catholid chuirch has, but many much more progressive as well (like Lutherans and UCC).