The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So why do you care?

Because it is an positively anti-rational belief. It commits people to the absurd.

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

1. Considering the Ancient Church is still a heavily diverse and fairly schismatic group (Among whom are included: Armenian Apostolics, Coptics, and the Church of the East) I'd say your "educated elite" didn't do a very good job.

They got rid of the gnostic and neo-platonic branches pretty effectively.

2. Greek they likely did. Almost everyone spoke Greek in the Eastern Roman Empire during the rise of Christianity, nevermind that some of the largest Christian centers back in that time was Greece. As for Slavonic and Cyrillic, are you blaming the Slavic side of the Church for bringing their own vernacular into the practice of their religion? There's literally nothing wrong with that. It's useless nitpicking. That doesn't mean the practices themselves are much different.

Like the First Christians and Jesus who, in preaching to the Jews, spoke in proper koine greek.

But I'm not saying there's something wrong wit that, I'm saying that it is an example (an obvious one of many) of the changes to the original Church, because you said 'how are you sure they are different', and the fact that they speak church Slavonic is a pretty clear one in my mind.

3. That's because Paul didn't, as I understand. Also, being part of the clergy/ministering.

Acts 18:24-26
Acts 16:1-16

4. Which is based on your baseless assertions that the Church has somehow gone completely haywire from it's origins, which you've provided no evidence for outside of your own personal disdain for their traditions.

To use another obvious example- Christmas Mass, everyone acknowledges that the holiday is appropriated from an existing Pagan one, as was All Hallow's Day and Easter Sunday, so it is certain that the first Christians probably didn't celebrate them.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Because it is an positively anti-rational belief. It commits people to the absurd.

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. Why not correct someone who is wrong?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. Why not correct someone who is wrong?

So you say, but nobody cares for your "correction." None of us care what you have to say, which you atheists can't seem to drive through your skull, and we have to suffer the annoyance of every so often the swaths of atheists thinking they have something of value to contribute to our beliefs. You think you will succeed in debating us, but all you succeed in doing is trying our patience.

[New confederate ramenia]

And not a single one of us really gives a shit over your opinion, so why not piss off and leave us to our own devices?

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. Why not correct someone who is wrong?

What's a fact?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. Why not correct someone who is wrong?

So you say, but nobody cares for your "correction." None of us care what you have to say, which you atheists can't seem to drive through your skull, and we have to suffer the annoyance of every so often the swaths of atheists thinking they have something of value to contribute to our beliefs. You think you will succeed in debating us, but all you succeed in doing is trying our patience.

(1) I don't think I have stated that I am an Atheist, I have just stated that I am not a Christian.

(2) The point someone makes is unrelated to their beliefs, there are many biblical scholars who aren't conventional Christians or Christians at all, like Prof. Morton Smith.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. Why not correct someone who is wrong?

What's a fact?

Transubstantiation is a strange belief which most reasonable people would find laughable and anti-rational.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

What's a fact?

Transubstantiation is a strange belief which most reasonable people would find laughable and anti-rational.

And really the only meaningful response to that, is against the rules of this forum to iterate.

[Salus Maior]

1.They got rid of the gnostic and neo-platonic branches pretty effectively.

2.Like the First Christians and Jesus who, in preaching to the Jews, spoke in proper koine greek.

But I'm not saying there's something wrong wit that, I'm saying that it is an example (an obvious one of many) of the changes to the original Church, because you said 'how are you sure they are different', and the fact that they speak church Slavonic is a pretty clear one in my mind.


3. A.Acts 18:24-26
B. Acts 16:1-16

4.To use another obvious example- Christmas Mass, everyone acknowledges that the holiday is appropriated from an existing Pagan one, as was All Hallow's Day and Easter Sunday, so it is certain that the first Christians probably didn't celebrate them.

1. They sure did. Because what they taught was waaaayyyy off from true Christian teaching. To the point where they were almost separate religions half the time.

2.And it's a pointless difference. And I'm not denying that the Church has undergone changes (if you actually read my first post in our little discussion), what I'm saying is that said changes were part of a natural, historical progression. Why was Greek insisted as the language of Orthodox Liturgy? Because Greek was a language that everyone could understand as the Lingua Franca of the Empire, and it was necessary in order to maintain unity in the Church considering the diverse peoples under the rule of Rome in the East. I imagine the adoption of Slavonic Liturgy has similar historic origins.

3. A. Telling someone about religion =/= Being part of the Clergy. Hell, there have been many women in the Church who have preached to people (one of whom, a Saint who I can't remember the name, brought Christianity to Georgia). Again, Ministering =/= being in the Clergy.

B. A woman got baptized. Everyone who becomes a Christian gets baptized. Geez, you really don't know anything about Christianity do you?

Neither of these verses depicts a woman being put into the Clergy.

4. Actually, it is because so many converts continued to celebrate those holidays that the Church Christianized them.

[New confederate ramenia]

What's a fact?

Transubstantiation is a strange belief which most reasonable people would find laughable and anti-rational.

I'm sure that none of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world are reasonable.

[Cill Airne]

The Eucharist/ last supper is tied to the Levitical Sacrificial system. In order to partake in the sacrifice of Christ and inherit the life, we partake in the flesh and blood of the lamb. Transubstantiation is then an implicit tradition.

It is also nonsensical. Just because you Christians want to get as many references to the Temple and the Old Testament as possible (Jesus riding on two donkeys in Matthew 21:1-7) for your street cred, but, com'on, at some point, you just have to say that this whole thing is symbolic of eating Jesus because he was the Lamb to be sacrificed, and not actually eating Jesus who is magicked into bread and wine.

Even the Anglican Reformers believed in a real presence in Christ (mind you, not all agree with Transubstantiation. But whether you're Anglo-Catholic like myself and do believe in Transubstantiation, or you're more protestant leaning like many Anglicans, all Anglicans believe in some form of Real Presence. The Book of Common Prayer states that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but does not specify how). Transubstantiation may not make explicit sense, and that is why it is a Holy Mystery. But for the millions, if not billions, of Christians who have accepted it as truth for centuries it did make sense, and it's reasoning behind the belief has made sense. Personally, I do not understand the importance of a Eucharist without Real Presence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It is also nonsensical. Just because you Christians want to get as many references to the Temple and the Old Testament as possible (Jesus riding on two donkeys in Matthew 21:1-7) for your street cred, but, com'on, at some point, you just have to say that this whole thing is symbolic of eating Jesus because he was the Lamb to be sacrificed, and not actually eating Jesus who is magicked into bread and wine.

Even the Anglican Reformers believed in a real presence in Christ (mind you, not all agree with Transubstantiation. But whether you're Anglo-Catholic like myself and do believe in Transubstantiation, or you're more protestant leaning like many Anglicans, all Anglicans believe in some form of Real Presence. The Book of Common Prayer states that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but does not specify how). Transubstantiation may not make explicit sense, and that is why it is a Holy Mystery. But for the millions, if not billions, of Christians who have accepted it as truth for centuries it did make sense, and it's reasoning behind the belief has made sense. Personally, I do not understand the importance of a Eucharist without Real Presence.

There is no importance with out the Real Presence.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Even the Anglican Reformers believed in a real presence in Christ (mind you, not all agree with Transubstantiation. But whether you're Anglo-Catholic like myself and do believe in Transubstantiation, or you're more protestant leaning like many Anglicans, all Anglicans believe in some form of Real Presence. The Book of Common Prayer states that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but does not specify how). Transubstantiation may not make explicit sense, and that is why it is a Holy Mystery. But for the millions, if not billions, of Christians who have accepted it as truth for centuries it did make sense, and it's reasoning behind the belief has made sense. Personally, I do not understand the importance of a Eucharist without Real Presence.

There is no importance with out the Real Presence.

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 11:24

Can't it have significance in symbolic value, as in Christ came to die for our sins, and we remember his sacrifice through the Eucharist, which is a symbolic ingestion of the Agnus Dei.

I'm sure that none of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world are reasonable.

In this respect, the 1.1 billion practicing Catholics are unreasonable. You could hold that belief of anyone you consider holding an anti-rational belief- you may say that of the practitioners of Santaria, and their belief in the manifestation of the One God in many Orishas.

1. They sure did. Because what they taught was waaaayyyy off from true Christian teaching. To the point where they were almost separate religions half the time.

From their own perspective. If a Gnostic sect have won out, we would be saying that of the current Church.

2.And it's a pointless difference. And I'm not denying that the Church has undergone changes (if you actually read my first post in our little discussion), what I'm saying is that said changes were part of a natural, historical progression. Why was Greek insisted as the language of Orthodox Liturgy? Because Greek was a language that everyone could understand as the Lingua Franca of the Empire, and it was necessary in order to maintain unity in the Church considering the diverse peoples under the rule of Rome in the East. I imagine the adoption of Slavonic Liturgy has similar historic origins.

And yet, that only serves to muddy the water, in that any instances of Change can be caulked up to 'Natural Progression', while all the elements that are extra biblical can be caulked up to tradition. Why continue to use Greek or Church Slavonic, when people no longer understand these as living languages?

3. A. Telling someone about religion =/= Being part of the Clergy. Hell, there have been many women in the Church who have preached to people (one of whom, a Saint who I can't remember the name, brought Christianity to Georgia). Again, Ministering =/= being in the Clergy.

The Bible does not mention any sort of clergy. They do put a woman in the capacity of ministering and teaching, making her, effectively, a leader within her own congregation and acknowledged by Paul.

4. Actually, it is because so many converts continued to celebrate those holidays that the Church Christianized them.

So?

[Luminesa]

What's a fact?

Transubstantiation is a strange belief which most reasonable people would find laughable and anti-rational.

Um, actually, what you are saying is opinion, and I can prove it.

I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, and again, like someone else here said, you mean to tell me that the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, including the many Saints in our Church's tradition, many of whom were incredibly intelligent (in particular Aquinas himself, who forwarded the idea of transubstantiation) are not reasonable people?

I don't find trying to claim that a 2,000-year-old religion which has produced some of the most incredible scientific and literary minds in history, and which has shaped the Western world for just as long, to be reasonable. Rather, I find it arrogant. The Catholic Church invented the scientific method, by the way.

Good night and God bless.

[Luminesa]

Even the Anglican Reformers believed in a real presence in Christ (mind you, not all agree with Transubstantiation. But whether you're Anglo-Catholic like myself and do believe in Transubstantiation, or you're more protestant leaning like many Anglicans, all Anglicans believe in some form of Real Presence. The Book of Common Prayer states that Christ is present in the Eucharist, but does not specify how). Transubstantiation may not make explicit sense, and that is why it is a Holy Mystery. But for the millions, if not billions, of Christians who have accepted it as truth for centuries it did make sense, and it's reasoning behind the belief has made sense. Personally, I do not understand the importance of a Eucharist without Real Presence.

There is no importance with out the Real Presence.

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 11:24

Can't it have significance in symbolic value, as in Christ came to die for our sins, and we remember his sacrifice through the Eucharist, which is a symbolic ingestion of the Agnus Dei.

I'm sure that none of the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world are reasonable.

In this respect, the 1.1 billion practicing Catholics are unreasonable. You could hold that belief of anyone you consider holding an anti-rational belief- you may say that of the practitioners of Santaria, and their belief in the manifestation of the One God in many Orishas.

I don't practice Santaria!
I ain't got no crystal ball, if I had a million dollars than I-I-I'd...
I'D SPEND IT ALL!!!

[Talvezout]

Not sure if to make separate thread or to put it here, but here goes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... tican-says

As a Catholic, this pains me. I'm really hoping this is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, especially when the Vatican was making some good steps towards healing, on both sides, from the child abuse scandal way back.

[Luminesa]

Not sure if to make separate thread or to put it here, but here goes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... tican-says

As a Catholic, this pains me. I'm really hoping this is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, especially when the Vatican was making some good steps towards healing, on both sides, from the child abuse scandal way back.

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Um, actually, what you are saying is opinion, and I can prove it.

I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, and again, like someone else here said, you mean to tell me that the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, including the many Saints in our Church's tradition, many of whom were incredibly intelligent (in particular Aquinas himself, who forwarded the idea of transubstantiation) are not reasonable people?

1.1 Billion people can be wrong. 1.1 Billion people have been wrong. Aquinas himself is wrong in many respects.

I don't find trying to claim that a 2,000-year-old religion which has produced some of the most incredible scientific and literary minds in history, and which has shaped the Western world for just as long, to be reasonable. Rather, I find it arrogant. The Catholic Church invented the scientific method, by the way.

And what does this have to do with the fact that they are wrong? The Greeks practically invented Western Philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes), and it is from the Greeks most of the best of our literature derive (Milton using the Epic form of both the Roman Virgil and the Greek Homer, neither of whom are Christian), you would say that they are wrong about Zeus.

Good night and God bless.

Sure, night.

[Luminesa]

Um, actually, what you are saying is opinion, and I can prove it.

I think I'm a pretty reasonable person, and again, like someone else here said, you mean to tell me that the 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, including the many Saints in our Church's tradition, many of whom were incredibly intelligent (in particular Aquinas himself, who forwarded the idea of transubstantiation) are not reasonable people?

1.1 Billion people can be wrong. 1.1 Billion people have been wrong. Aquinas himself is wrong in many respects.

I don't find trying to claim that a 2,000-year-old religion which has produced some of the most incredible scientific and literary minds in history, and which has shaped the Western world for just as long, to be reasonable. Rather, I find it arrogant. The Catholic Church invented the scientific method, by the way.

And what does this have to do with the fact that they are wrong? The Greeks practically invented Western Philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes), and it is from the Greeks most of the best of our literature derive (Milton using the Epic form of both the Roman Virgil and the Greek Homer, neither of whom are Christian), you would say that they are wrong about Zeus.

Good night and God bless.

Sure, night.

...Well, since you responded a lot quicker than I thought you would, two questions:

1.) What religion do you adhere to?

2.) Have you ever studied WHY the Church believes in transubstantiation? Because from the outside-looking-in, yes it might look weird. But if you actually study from a Catholic's perspective why we believe what we believe, it makes a lot of sense. A book I would recommend is The Last Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Great book, I just started it and it's full of scriptural references and everything.

Okay, NOW good night.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Not sure if to make separate thread or to put it here, but here goes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... tican-says

As a Catholic, this pains me. I'm really hoping this is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, especially when the Vatican was making some good steps towards healing, on both sides, from the child abuse scandal way back.

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

The Guardian, those liars, like the time they lied about Rupert Murdoch and his subsidiaries' phone tapping.

Or the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam.

Or the Magdalene Laundry scandal.

Or selling Spanish Babies.

Why trust secular source when our own, very biased source with a lot of vested interest says otherwise?

[Luminesa]

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

The Guardian, those liars, like the time they lied about Rupert Murdoch and his subsidiaries' phone tapping.

Or the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam.

Or the Magdalene Laundry scandal.

Or selling Spanish Babies.

Why trust secular source when our own, very biased source with a lot of vested interest says otherwise?

You know, secular media has biases because, surprise, people write The Guardian. Every piece of media has biases, but generally the secular media has never had anything nice to say about the Church. Soooo...yeah.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

...Well, since you responded a lot quicker than I thought you would, two questions:

1.) What religion do you adhere to?

Buddhism.

2.) Have you ever studied WHY the Church believes in transubstantiation? Because from the outside-looking-in, yes it might look weird. But if you actually study from a Catholic's perspective why we believe what we believe, it makes a lot of sense. A book I would recommend is The Last Supper by Dr. Scott Hahn. Great book, I just started it and it's full of scriptural references and everything.

Most of it is justification via a certain reading of the Bible, when the Bible can admit a different, less incredible interpretation.

[Talvezout]

Not sure if to make separate thread or to put it here, but here goes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/f ... tican-says

As a Catholic, this pains me. I'm really hoping this is a mistranslation or a misunderstanding, especially when the Vatican was making some good steps towards healing, on both sides, from the child abuse scandal way back.

It's the Guardian, feel free to ignore it. In fact, feel free to ignore any secular media when it comes to the Vatican. Secular media always messes things up.

Pope Francis has said we are working on it, and thus WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

There's more news sources:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/vatican- ... mr6v7.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 66061.html
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/internati ... hild-abuse

To be honest Lumi, we really can't just dismiss it like that. I mean, if it's true, then yes I'm rather disappointed with my church; if it's not true, then I'm equally disappointed in The Guardian.

Alas, if it is true though, I'll be disappointed like how I'm disappointed with my own country; I'm unhappy with the leaders, not with the actual message (e.g, for the US, I like living here and in the RCC, the message of Jesus Christ)

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

The Guardian, those liars, like the time they lied about Rupert Murdoch and his subsidiaries' phone tapping.

Or the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam.

Or the Magdalene Laundry scandal.

Or selling Spanish Babies.

Why trust secular source when our own, very biased source with a lot of vested interest says otherwise?

You know, secular media has biases because, surprise, people write The Guardian. Every piece of media has biases, but generally the secular media has never had anything nice to say about the Church. Soooo...yeah.

So, instead of looking to the Church for all these scandals, we must attack the media for shedding light upon them.

[New confederate ramenia]

The Guardian, those liars, like the time they lied about Rupert Murdoch and his subsidiaries' phone tapping.

Or the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home in Tuam.

Or the Magdalene Laundry scandal.

Or selling Spanish Babies.

Why trust secular source when our own, very biased source with a lot of vested interest says otherwise?

You know, secular media has biases because, surprise, people write The Guardian. Every piece of media has biases, but generally the secular media has never had anything nice to say about the Church. Soooo...yeah.

The secular media's biggest problems in reporting are with Pope Francis's stances on social issues. The child abuse scandal also has issues of bias, but we can't dismiss it so easily.