I want my post on this page.

The Crusades were just another set of wars. An important set, but no more bloody or cruel than any other. They just happen to be more interesting so people read about Christian soldiers riding ankle deep in blood in Jerusalem, but actions of equal brutality occurred in secular wars all over Europe and Islam was spread primarily through war and rival sultans and caliphs were constantly fighting each other. The Crusades are special because they're interesting, not interesting because their loss of life was particularly special.

Witch burnings were primarily Protestant affairs. Most happened in Germany after the Reformation, and Salem was a one-church, Congregationalist town.

Anti-science inquisitions were bad, but there was little death. Secular authorities were just as oppressive at the time when it comes to stuff like Galileo's house arrest. In fact, in terms of treatment the Church might have been a bit more lenient in most cases than a secular authority would. If Galileo had pissed off some Italian duke as much as he did the Pope he might have just been killed.

The Catholic Church also was a constant challenge to the authority of kings, and while not a democratic institution itself and not even advocating it till after Vatican II, the constant tension between the two helped crack state autocracy and lead to the development of individual freedoms, albeit VERY slowly and unintentionally. Fareed Zakaria made that argument recently.

I'd certainly agree. I'd add that in the past 100 or 200 years most Christian institutions have come a very long way in separating themselves (and actively oppose) the very types of acts atributed to organized religion in general. All of the above mentioned atrocities happened more than 200 years ago. Secular states, however, have a much more checkered past in the past 100 years. Ultimately the finger gets pointed at Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, and the like for the lion share of atrocities in the last hundred years and most of these were carried out through secular political power.

I agree that bad things done in the name of religion isn't necessarily a critique of religion. Just the same as Stalin killing millions isnt inherently a critique of communism. But we are getting off topic again.

Obviously if the only contribution you have to make is that no organised religion is good, then you wouldn't care for either.

It is very hard to lump all non-Catholic Christian sects into the category of Protestant. For many sects, the differences are actually seemlingly slight (Lutheran, Episcopalian) I was raised Presbyterian, was married in the Catholic church and spent years going to mass. I am now currently attending a Friends church.

From my observations, one of the key differences is in the actual viewpoint of the events of Easter and the way that it is portrayed throughout the year. Go into a Catholic church, you will not see a crucifix without the lifeless form of Christ. Go into most non-Catholic churches and you will see an empty cross. The Catholic mass and culture celebrates the agony of Christ and his act of selflessness = Catholic guilt. Most other Christian sects tend toward the wonder of the resurrection (thus the empty cross) and the ultimate victory over death and evil.

Agree to Rare Eagle, there's a large variety of Protestant denominations and movements. They mostly share only the given that they are Christian but not Catholic. Some movements, as the Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses I wouldn't even call Christian, because they deny the God-being of Jesus and sometimes the Holy Spirit.

I've been born in a Calvinist environment, the 'Reformed Church' (as we call it in the Netherlands) following the TULIP. Tho I've been raised in a rather rational faith I am somewhat attracted by the Roman Catholic Church, mainly because this church embodies a vast... body and still says to be the one Church Jesus has planted - while in the Netherlands there are many different protestant denominations thinking or feeling slightly different. That's rather confining.

@ Friendly Sword: have you visited Maastricht's cathedral yet? That should prove a magnificent sight.

"reliance on church tradition and the infallibility of the pope (only when he is speaking ex cathedra of course) versus reliance on the Bible."

yeah, but some traditions have value, and are worth respecting. However I believe everyone should evaluate those things personally. (unless you want a simple life where good and evil are prescribed to you, which i suppose is the service which organised religions offer, "happiness through obedience!"/"Ignorance is bliss" pick the slogan for your Church - Scientology goes further, "Happines for money", great to see the monetization of religion really, not that the Catholics hadn't tried it with the sale of indulgences for hundreds(?) of years)

I think it was Friendly who put forth the three main points of disagreement. Those essentially being:

1) The question of Sola Scriptura
2) The question of Papal Infallibility
3) The question of Sola Fide

Could those of you posting attempt to address these points as to wether you agree or disagree with them and why?

1. I think it's important to realize the difference between Sola Scriptura and Sola Scriptura Extremis (SSE, als called Ad Absurdum). In which the latter would be taking the Bible litterally at every point, neglecting cultural, historical and literal context. So when the more Calvinist denominations underscribe Sola Scriptura it means that no human source should be put above Scripture - tho we use human writings to explain the Scripture, and so on.

2. This sure is a great difference. As protestant, I don't know what to think about the pope. After all, in my eyes he's just a good christian and leader of a church. I certainly don't think he's the antichrist or something - but I can do little with the claims of papacy.

3. I myself think in Sola Fide, the Fide part is the basis for a good life with God. But as the apostle Paul says 'through faith you are saved' and Jake (Jacobus) says 'without actions your faith is dead'. I myself think it is thus a mixture, like the Heidelberger Cathechism also says: 'through faith must follow good deeds - and they will follow'. It still remains a mystery, and I think judging the Catholic Church on 'good deeds' is a bit too simple. As Scripture says: 'God works both willing and working' and 'God had pre-ordained the works he wants us to do'.

1. I do not ascribe to the Sola Scriptura mindset, in that I see human intellect and fellowship with other Christians to also be valid ways to decide on courses of action. I believe that the Holy Spirit moves thorugh us and guides us as well as the Scriptures. Both are important. Yes, it can be terribly hard to know if the impulse you feel is "of God". Hence Scripture is there as a balance to merely going with your gut because it's God's will. Likewise Spirit and intuition are there as a check to taking everything in the Scripture as literal fact. Truth can be expressed through parables. Christ showed this throughout his life.

2) The Pope is an archbishop and the leader of the largest Christian denomination. Hence I'd listen to him (especially growing up during the papacy of John Paul II) but not take his word as infallible. I do not believe that any human is infallible.

3) I believe that both faith in God and works on his behalf (and that of our neighbors) are necessary. No work of my own will earn me a place in Heaven (it's a gift from Christ), but I can actively reject that gift through making a habit of misdeeds and rebelliousness toward God.

Biblically speaking, I don't think too many churches are exactly right on board, but some of the worst offenders are Catholics and evangelicals. That's my opinion as what you might call "a neutral observer."

Ursa, as a Mormon I can assure you that we are Christians, in that we fully accept the divinity of Christ, which I would be consider to be the defining characteristic of Christianity (likewise, we also fully accept the divinity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.) We are not, however "traditional Christians", in that we reject the Creeds entirely. So under the broadest hierarchy, we would not be "Catholic", or "Orthodox", or "Protestant", but something like "Christian/Other".

1) As Mormons we accept the Bible as scripture, but reject "sola scriptura", as we consider living prophets and apostles to have authority equal to that of scripture, and we have an open canon (which is to say that we add scriptures to the canon as they are accepted by the Church as inspired.) The prophets and Apostles in ancient times claimed a level of authority equal to that of the Law given by Moses, and the living prophets and apostles who lead our Church claim a level of authority equal to that of the Bible.

2) We understand the importance of authority to administer the ordinances (or sacraments), but do not consider the Roman Catholic Church's authority to be valid, as the Apostles, not the Bishops, hold the ultimate authority, as they did in ancient times. The ancient Church, not necessarily through any fault of its own, lost its authority after the s of the Apostles.

3) As Mormons, we understand the importance of both faith and works, including personal worthiness, service to others, and the ordinances (or sacraments), as being important for salvation. But salvation ultimately comes through Jesus Christ, and is given as a gift to those who have followed His commandment to follow Him.

@TMW-
"physical evidence"? i think you are barking up the wrong tree there buddy. don't embarrass yourself now. if you want to talk evidence and logic, then I'm in, but if you want to stick on the side of folly and religion then use a faith-based argument, which I won't be able to argue against. This is between him and me (kind of like the pipeline to God Protestant thing except neither of us is "God" but you know what I mean...) so I don't mean to interrupt the thread for everybody, just to question this nice little tempting morsel of logic

shh no thread hi-jacking. also do all atheists believe in the invisible pink unicorn?

you can't see it (physical evidence that it is invisible)
you believe it is pink(this must be taken on faith)
and you know it exists, that's just obvious, besides a world without ol' pinkey would be unimaginable. - but that is an entirely different thread. i want to hear more from the christians...

"i refuse to prove that i exist" says God "for proof denies faith and without faith i am nothing"
"But" says man "the babel fish is a dead give away isn't it? it proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED"
"oh dear" says god "i hadn't thought of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA

@ Thucydides: perhaps you could elaborate a bit on which grounds you think denominations are more or less biblical.

" And then, on a Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change..."

-Douglas Adams

All religions are wrong. Even if god exists, which is extremely unlikely, there is no possible way that any of worlds organized religions were to be correct.
Let me prove that:
1. Major religions agree that humans have free will.

I only need that much to prove that your religion is wrong.
a) If 1 is not correct, then religion is pointless, as is it would be not our choice to be religious anyway. So if we have no free will then religion is false.
b) If 1 is correct then we have to assume that humans will do whatever they want according to their desires.
If they will do whatever they want we have to agree that holy books are not correct, because they were written and rewritten by humans who have free will to change them however they want and it would be naive to assume that over thousand of years, they done no such thing.
So if holy books are not correct then religions aren't correct either, because those books are corner stone of those religions.
But if you say that god intervened in the process of preserving they true intended holy book, then you are saying that god went against humans free will and that negates point a, which would mean that we have no free will in which case religion is false.

So either we have free will and religion is false, or we don't and religion is still false. In any case there is no way to know whether god exists, but religion is certain to be false.
But for the arguments sake lets assume that we have free will and your holy book is still correct. We must then question another thing. Even though books were probably our greatest invention they are still in principle very primitive way to communicate your thoughts and when you have to rely on imperfect humans to write them, then theres no way that those books are perfect. It would be just like a blind man trying to draw a masterpiece, even if a world famous painter were teaching him, he simply has no tools to do it.
That begs to question what is proper way to look for god and the obvious answer is - science. According to religion universe was created by god, in which case it is direct creation of god and not a 1000 times changed piece of literature. So observing the stars is much better than reading some 2000 year old book. So all you! Yes, you, religious folks. Lets pour billions into scientific research. Lets send man to the mars and beyond. Lets cure cancer, lets conquer death itself. Lets look up closer to the smallest of particles to understand universe itself.
LETS SOLVE UNIVERSE LIKE A PUZZLE!!!

I think you are argueing that science is more useful for understand the universe, (which if you believe is a work of God then you support it's science) but free will or not science says nothing about how we should live out out lives.

Religious texts do, but there is no definite right or wrong, (so religion isn't wrong) there is merely possible choices, strategies, on how to live your life and how others should live their lives.

Now some may argue that humanist philosophies can replace all religious teachings on how we should treat our fellow man, if you wish to argue thusly do, but fight religion on it's own ground, not the ground it has already given up to science (and some great scientists were & are religious believers who wish to pursue this study of the universe by the best means available, ie science)

And also theres creationists, who are widely agreed to be dumber than apes.

I'm arguing that those books tells nothing useful, absolutely none useful information. I'm arguing that religion has to abandon religious texts. If you are religious looking up at stars will give more useful information than the bible or whatever your holy book is.

So the thoughts, (free as you claim they are) of men revised over thousands of years, have nothing useful in them then you are sorely mis-guided, and will have little or no following. Good luck.

That's stupid. You can learn plenty of good information from episodes in the Bible such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Prodigal Son. Saying there's no useful information in the Bible is like saying there's no useful information in Moby Dick.

It's the message that counts, you moron.

Also theres the countless killing episodes.
What I mean that theres no useful information that was divinely inspired. The book was written by men and anyone could come up with a few good bits themselves.

yeah anyone can come up with something, and the internet is literally full of crap that people came up with. Millions of billions of words (i guess) but when it cost a lot more to write anything down, the things which were written tended to be of better quality. Further those ones which have survived aren't just randomly selected, they are the best ones which people have chosen to pass down.

I am fairly sure that most members of the clergy interpret their good book to apply best to the issues faced by their own flock (those who seek guidance from them) so it is argueable that there might be a simpler way of stating their case, but that doesn't mean they are wrong just less than perfect - which you seem to agre is the best humans can hope for.

The problem with bible is that it can justify anything. Theres just no way that you can find inspiration to kill from Moby Dick. But in the bible you can find good lines, like "Love thy neighbor" and despicable lines, like "Kill all gays".

This is off topic, but Fanas, I think one point you may be missing is that your logic also undermines science. If man is fallible, and makes mistakes, then we can't trust books on science any more than we can trust the Bible.

The reason people trust anything--whether it is the Bible, or Darwin's Origin of the Species, or any other book or publication or speech--is because a large number of people have investigated it and believe it to be true, and put their support behind it. That's how science works; nothing is magically true just because it is labeled as "science", it is accepted as true because it has been verified by a large number of people working independently. And that, as it turns out, is exactly how religion works--a religion is believed to be true because a large number of people have independently examined the doctrines of that faith, and have come to the conclusion that they are correct, such as that God exists. The challenge for you is to decide who to believe and who not to believe--which means that you will have to examine the issues at hand independently, rather than rely on thin logic regarding the failings of mankind to come to an all too easy conclusion.

To touch back on
"1) The question of Sola Scriptura
2) The question of Papal Infallibility
3) The question of Sola Fide
"
1) As mentioned, this has various degrees, some of which are absurd, others are trivial, so it's hard to debate intelligently.

2) The Pope is not infallible. And no one ever claims him to be. Certainly not Catholic dogma. The dogma of "papal infallibility" says that under certain specific circumstances, the pope can declare doctrine that must be accepted by the Catholic Church. Specifically:
"the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."
(first Vatican Council)
This has happened exactly once in the history of the Church.

Because of the confusion in "papal infallibility" this is often quoted as saying that Catholics believe the Pope is perfect and can do no wrong, which is absurd.

3) As far as I can tell faith and works are entirely equivalent. I have never seen how this can be reasonably argued.

@Fanas

You wrote:

"1. Major religions agree that humans have free will.

I only need that much to prove that your religion is wrong."

Very well, I’ll agree that Christianity holds as a tenet the belief that people have free will.



“a) If 1 is not correct, then religion is pointless, as is it would be not our choice to be religious anyway. So if we have no free will then religion is false.”

Not that religion is false as a whole but that one particular idea associated with it is not accurate. Hence if we were to have partial free will (only being nudged in certain directions from time to time for instance) , then it would not cause a total breakdown of all religions, nor even question the validity of one of them. More to come as the rebuttal to this will have to be lengthy.

@Fanas

You wrote
“b) If 1 is correct then we have to assume that humans will do whatever they want according to their desires.”


Not true. Humans are influenced by a great many things. We constantly make choices (some very difficult). How do you justify saying that “humans will do whatever they want according to their desires”? My own experience states the contrary. I’m making choices all of the time that I do not really want to make, but necessity dictates otherwise. Do I make a choice? Yes. Is it based on my desires? Not necessarily.

@Fanas

You wrote
“If they will do whatever they want we have to agree that holy books are not correct, because they were written and rewritten by humans who have free will to change them however they want and it would be naive to assume that over thousand of years, they done no such thing.”


This presupposes that merely because someone can do something that it follows that they will do something. Again evidence can be submitted to the contrary. For instance, among the Dead Sea Scrolls were many versions of canonical texts that were later included in the Holy Bible. It is evident from reading those texts (lost for 1,500 to nearly 2,000 years in some cases) that the versions that were in existence at that time are very much similar to the ones in existence today. Your argument ignores that the people responsible for translating and transcribing certainly believed in God and expected his wrath if they altered the Scriptures for selfish purposes. Hence the argument only works if you attribute an atheistic mindset to people who most likely did not share it. It is not naïve to believe that people who are handling a great treasure would handle it with care.