The true measure of a religion

[Athelas]

"The true measure of a religion isn't the number of converts, the size of its buildings, or even the fervor of its faithful, the true measure of a religion is the good its faithful do in the world."

This is from a speech given at one of the many memorial services on 9/11.

Do you agree or disagree, and why?

[Celebthôl]

I agree with it, i mean religion may not even be real, but if it improves peoples lives, it is the closest thing to what a religion would/should do. I dont believe that the real religion spends lots on itself like the catholics where they had massive giant gold altars, i believe the more real religion is the one that has a wooden table as an altar and gives ALL thats about 95% of its proceeds to the poor and needy and the last 5% goes on the church's upkeep and the priests needs i.e. clothes and food.

[Beorn]

There is now a Guild of Religion. Please keep threads of this nature there (or rather here now that I've moved this.)

[Feanorian]

i believe the more real religion is the one that has a wooden table as an altar and gives ALL thats about 95% of its proceeds to the poor and needy and the last 5% goes on the church's upkeep and the priests needs i.e. clothes and food.

I agree with this to a degree. My church is very large and we just added on to the building so now its larger. It seems they have made it almost too nice. We have been collecting for years and it just seems if they took some simple budget cuts then we could have stopped years ago.


There is now a Guild of Religion. Please keep threads of this nature there (or rather here now that I've moved this.)

Just curious...where was this posted before?

[Ciryaher]

I agree.

[HLGStrider]

I disagree.

What makes a religion great or less great is the truth of the religion.

If I went around doing good and saying, "Santa Claus blesses you." Or "Take this in memory of the Holy Cat of Catmandu" I might do good, but it wouldnt' be for my religion, even if I protested for years that I was doing it for my religion, and even if I did the most good in the world it wouldn't make Santa Claus real or make the Cat of Catmandu any holier.

And no matter what I did that was bad in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Allah, it wouldnt' change their nature. The question still is, were the teachings true? Did the person exist? Is he really God?

Plus, what is done good or bad by a religion alters. You can find do-gooders, for a lack of a better phrase, in all religions, and you can most likely find do-badders (think Bing).

Mostly you'll find normal people.

We have no effect on truth.

Truth is what matters. . .religion is just one of our endevors to find it.

[Ciryaher]

You assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong. This is no surprise, though, because almost every other religion in the world thinks the same.

Now, eventually, at the current pace, Islam will have more followers than Christianity, thus they will be the majority. Their law will rule, rather than yours. To them, they will be right, and you will be wrong. Your works will be of little consequence because you are incorrect.

Christians will then no longer be able to rely on sheer numbers as indirect proof of their infallibility.

Will you still continue to say "what good we do for our fellow man does not make us right, the fact that we are who we are makes us right"?

[HLGStrider]

You assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong

Where?

I never said anything like that.

Now, eventually, at the current pace, Islam will have more followers than Christianity, thus they will be the majority

And Christianity has never been the minority? Majority doesn't make right. I never said that either.

Will you still continue to say "what good we do for our fellow man does not make us right, the fact that we are who we are makes us right"?

I don't see how what I do makes me right or wrong. Let's say I say, "It is not wrong to kill." Does the fact that I am a good person make me have more moral authority than the other?

I believe Christianity is right not because it has a majority. Not because I know Christians who do good things. Not because a lot of things.

I believe Christianity is right because I believe it speaks truth.

The question therefore, should not be, is HLG a good person? If she is a good person I will believe what she says.

It should be Does HLG speak the truth? I must discover if she speaks the truth, and then I will believe what she says or not.

What does what I do have to do with the validity of what I say?

[Ciryaher]

Well if you went around stealing things from people, and then preached that stealing was wrong, you'd have a contradiction.


But to my point; what about people who have found truth in what *they* believe in? Is your truth better than theirs?

[HLGStrider]

People do things that are contradictory. I believe lying is wrong. I still have lied.

Obviously one is truth and one is not. The question is which is truth and which is not.

If they contradict each other they can't be both right.

So, we examine the contradictions to find truth. We dont' just say, "Oh well, what the heck. Since we disagree we must both be right."

[Athelas]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
Well if you went around stealing things from people, and then preached that stealing was wrong, you'd have a contradiction.


But to my point; what about people who have found truth in what *they* believe in? Is your truth better than theirs?

Watch how some people spin out if you suggest that they are not the sole proprietors of Absolute Truth. It's as if your communion with God in your own way makes them out to be liars. I think we should just let God decide who's right.

[HLGStrider]

I think we should just let God decide who's right.

God knows who is right. The question is, are any of we?

And this about finding truth, if truth is not absolute, it is not truth.

It's something that changes for people.

We, as humans, have no control over God. Just because I believe with all my heart and soul that God is a Great Pumpkin, no matter how much I believeit, doesn't make it true.

However, if God were a Great Pumpkin, it would be true even if I didn't believe it.

[Ciryaher]

How can you possibly judge truth when you have never read the texts and/or have a knowledge of the fundaments of another religion? Just because it is the only "truth" you know, that in know way means that it is the only one.

Truth should be based on weighed consideration, not just a simple "This is all I know, so it must be true."

My reading into other religions has not driven me away from Christ, it has brought me closer because I realize that what he is saying really *is* right (however, this is not to say that I believe that things such as the Eucharest are part of being one with God). Even when I was a child, as well as when I got older and had read the Bible, I never at any point believed that Jesus *is* literally God.

[HLGStrider]

How can you possibly judge truth when you have never read the texts and/or have a knowledge of the fundaments of another religion? Just because it is the only "truth" you know, that in know way means that it is the only one.

You make a few assumptions. One that I have never read any texts by other religions. Not true.
Two that it's all I know. I know the basic theology for quite a few religions.
I'm a big reader of mythology for instance.

I have never had a reason to be dissatisfied with Christianity, so I don't do a whole lot of searching outside of it. I find Christianity very thrilling and exciting and like to delve into it.

My reading into other religions has not driven me away from Christ

As I said, I plan to read several other texts. I don't feel it would be right for me to debate other religions if I don't know what they say and I haven't had the opportunity to read that many. At this point I tend to read the basics of their theology and then compare and contrast it to others.

I personally believe a person should know as much as possible about their own faith before they start to delve into the faiths of others. It just makes more sense that way. I don't want a bunch of Christians who don't know the first thing about Christianity. That's ridiculous.

I still feel I need to study more about Christianity before I branch into the other texts. However, Christianity clearly states the deity of Christ.

I'm interested in why you call yourself a Christian, Cir? I noticed you reconsidering it on another thread, and you're right, you don't believe a lot of the Christian basics. One of those is the deity of Christ. In fact, I think it is one of the most basic points.

If Christ were not God his death on the cross would've done absolutely nothing.

[Ciryaher]

I don't think one has to be a god to serve God's purpose. Christ, I believe, was a great prophet, to put it in bland words. He was chosen by God (becoming a Son of God) and was given an exceptional spirit. He followed the path chosen for him by God, and having not faltered, served to serve as the ultimate sacrifice of a pure soul in order to save humanity.

You concern yourself with details. Perhaps I do too by arguing it. But I don't argue for the point of proving truth, I argue to prove that truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of what Christ was, the most important thing (in my observational heart) is that we follow the *teachings* of Christ. Christ said to the people "Love thy neighbor". Rather than teach what many religions before and after taught, Christians were ordered to love everyone and judge no-one.

It would be easy to say "Christ is God!" and to be a rotten person. Even if the person believed that Christ really is God, they are choosing to believe in a detail rather than the Big Picture. People have and will argue about who Christ was. But if they believe that Jesus died to serve as a sacrifice, and they are good people that love their neighbors and follow Jesus' teachings--the Core or Fundaments of Christianity--I believe that they are on the right path that will lead them to God.

How can you say that the Hindus, to whom Krishna is so closely related to Christ that I am still amazed, are condemned because they do not worship Jesus? They follow the same set of beliefs: worship God, be kind to others, etc. Are they so different from you because of a name?

If Jesus is all of humanity's saviour, why did he not preach to all people? There are still people today that do not know of Christ. Are they to be condemned because they could not know? Yet they worship a Great Spirit and care for eachother and life a life of goodness...does God condemn those who worship him in a different way?

[Athelas]

>We, as humans, have no control over God. Just because I believe with all my heart and soul that God is a Great Pumpkin, no matter how much I believeit, doesn't make it true.<

Yes, but God loves us all, and I'm sure that he would find your pumpkin patch to be very sincere and be moved by the devotion and love in your heart, even if you are directing it at a pumpkin.;)

It was my studies of world religions that brought me full circle back round to the Christianity that I rejected as a child. I saw how most of the great world religions shared so much in common; especially the primal drive to return home to the Creator. I saw God take human birth many times as an Avatar; Buddha, Krishna, Christ, and others. They were all God, appearing to different nations in different ages; but attacking each other over which particular inacarnation was "really God" is just lamebrained. It is missing the Bigger Picture.

Each Avatar presented a unique path to enlightenment which that particular nation could understand and use. The paths are as diverse as human beings, but all rivers lead to the same place; the sea refuses no river. If a person has led a good life, if her heart is good,but never practiced a religion, she goes to God. God doesn't care how you come home, as long as you make it home. On the other hand, someone who is evil and full of hate, but claims salvation because of their religion, is in for a big letdown when God weighs their heart.

[Talierin]

Yeah, and while you're at it you might as well throw out half the Bible because most of it doesn't agree with this. :rolleyes: But then again, picking and choosing what you like out of religions is fine, just as long as it serves you. We can also ignore the fact that man is not good, and can't be good for an hour, much less a day (have *you* ever gone a day without sinning? I know I haven't). Why? Because all of us like to feel good about ourselves, that we're all good people. It's society that makes us bad, yeah...

[Athelas]

I'd say one good measure of a religion is how loving and welcoming it is to foreign people vs being elitist, exclusive and xenophobic. It seems like the ones that scream the loudest that they are the Only True Faith also tend to have the most violent followers.

[HLGStrider]

Yes, but God loves us all, and I'm sure that he would find your pumpkin patch to be very sincere and be moved by the devotion and love in your heart, even if you are directing it at a pumpkin.

I think he would be saddened that he's done what he can for people and they misdirect the love towards something other than him. . .and it still doesn't make the pumpkin God, therefore the religion is still false, and false is still a bad thing. . .unless you put no value on truth whatsoever.

I don't think Christ being an avatar is a vallid option. As I've said elsewhere, all we really know aobut Christ's teaching is what he says in the Gospels and they directly deny what you're saying.

He followed the path chosen for him by God, and having not faltered, served to serve as the ultimate sacrifice of a pure soul in order to save humanity.

It wouldnt' work. If all was needed was a pure soul, then what would be needed was to sacrifice a newborn. . .plus, with what Christ said, if he wasnt' God, he wasn't a pure soul. He was guilty of blasphemy.

Regardless of what Christ was, the most important thing (in my observational heart) is that we follow the *teachings* of Christ. Christ said to the people "Love thy neighbor".

Not according to Christianity. The most important thing is faith. Not by works, lest anyone should boast. You won't get anywhere by being good. For one thing "all have sinned." For another, it isn't how it works by any stretch of Christian/Biblical teaching.


How can you say that the Hindus, to whom Krishna is so closely related to Christ that I am still amazed, are condemned because they do not worship Jesus?

I would have to study Hinduism in greater depth, but I happen to know that isn't the only difference. Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. Hinduism involves reincarnation, something that is not true according to Christianity. A couple of other differences.

Also, Hinduism is also a "Salvation by works" religion. You lead a good life, you go up a caste notch. Lead a bad one, become a fly.

Christianity isn't based on works. Hinduism isn't based on belief.

Big difference.


There are still people today that do not know of Christ. Are they to be condemned because they could not know?

As I've said elsewhere, this isn't my department, and I believe in a fair God who takes everything into account. A child who dies before they are old enough to understand Christianity will not go to hell. He is saved because he wasn't understood. There is probably a similar catch system for those who have never heard. . .

Also, God said seek and you will find. If someone who never hears of Christianity is truly seeking, they will find. . .maybe not Christianity, but the God of it.

Don't you think the way this arguement turned around is interesting?

I stated that Ididn' believe the premisis and now it is an arguement on whether or not there is absolute truth, more or less.

We should get back to the premesis, you judge a religion by what the followers do.

Take Thol's statement: Even if it is not true, at least there has been some good done (paraphrased).

Think about that. Despite the good it is still not true. The person is still living in darkness. No matter what good they are doing, it doesn't make the religion true.

So why does this reflect well on the religion?

I'd say one good measure of a religion is how loving and welcoming it is to foreign people vs being elitist, exclusive and xenophobic.

You're not dealing with foreign people in your post. You're dealing with foreign ideas. Ideas should be approached as 'are they true or false."

I'd rather have a religion that doesn't bend then one that accepts every hair brain idea to be "inclusive".

[Athelas]

>I'd rather have a religion that doesn't bend then one that accepts every hair brain idea to be "inclusive".<

This is a good point, but I think there is a middle ground between being completely rigid and being spineless and spongelike.

There seems to be an unsettling trend on Pagan boards to include Satanists. I disagree with this, as Satan is a being from Christianity and the Satanists I've encountered are exactly the kind of jerks you would expect, and worse. I have no illusions about their agenda. Witches have a hard enough time explaining that we worship a Goddess, not Satan, and then Satanists call themselves Witches, which is as accurate as a Sikh calling himself a Quaker. I get flak because I'm the voice saying "yes, you can tell the differance between GOOD and EVIL."

For the record, I define an Avatar as God taking a human incarnation. Jesus was God born as a human.

Back to the Great Pumpkin. You sit in your pumpkin patch, loving the pumpkin that you believe is god with all your heart, with devotion and will. Then the real god you never knew comes along. Is a god of love going to hate and reject a pure heart because of ignorance? The Truth that has value here is the nature of the individual soul.

Our basic differance lies in this: I don't believe that any mans sins can be taken on by another person, even god. The individual has got to work through their own Karmic lessons and karmic debts. Jesus showed a way to attain Gnosis;direct Union with God. It's just like the Matrix. No one can tell you about it. You have to experience it yourself. The teachings of Jesus were manipulated and twisted by the church in order to establish and insure its own earthly power. Rather than focusing on the individuals spiritual growth, emphasis was placed on pledging fealty to the Lord and his earthly representatives, the Church. If you wanted God's help, you had to go through the Church. Nice racket. Those who pursued direct union with divinity through Gnosis were labeled heretics and killed.

[Ciryaher]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
I don't think Christ being an avatar is a vallid option. As I've said elsewhere, all we really know aobut Christ's teaching is what he says in the Gospels and they directly deny what you're saying.

Please provide a quote where Christ says "I have not come ever before to teach anyone else" or something at least resembling that.

It wouldnt' work. If all was needed was a pure soul, then what would be needed was to sacrifice a newborn. . .plus, with what Christ said, if he wasnt' God, he wasn't a pure soul. He was guilty of blasphemy.

Good grief, you can understand the Bible's twisted and contradictory speech and take it as truth, but you can't understand the meaning in modern English? Surely you can, so it must be that you refuse to accept anything that casts a new light on your own beliefs. "Pure soul" doesn't mean innocent baby, it means a soul devoid of imperfection. An "angel" or "saviour", not a human.


Not according to Christianity. The most important thing is faith. Not by works, lest anyone should boast. You won't get anywhere by being good. For one thing "all have sinned." For another, it isn't how it works by any stretch of Christian/Biblical teaching.

I never said you get to Heaven by "being good". You get to Heaven by "being good and having faith in God". But believing in God and being a jerk to everyone here on Earth won't get you anywhere either. You sure like to pick and choose what you respond to.

I would have to study Hinduism in greater depth, but I happen to know that isn't the only difference. Hinduism is a pantheistic religion. Hinduism involves reincarnation, something that is not true according to Christianity. A couple of other differences.

Some Hindus only observe The God, and that all the lesser "gods" are creations of the One. Hindus believe that you have to have faith in God to be one with him. And for my own personal use, can you tell me where Christ or anyone else says "You do not come back"?

Christianity isn't based on works. Hinduism isn't based on belief.

Wrong (again). Krishna instructs people to worship him, and that through his teachings, they can become one with God (Krishna doesn't beat around the bush and confuse people like Jesus does in the Bible). Hindus must believe in God to be one with him.

We should get back to the premesis, you judge a religion by what the followers do.

Well lynching heretics (inquisition), preaching xenophobia, and killing off anyone who gets in their way (crusades) sure aren't making Christianity look very good.

Think about that. Despite the good it is still not true. The person is still living in darkness. No matter what good they are doing, it doesn't make the religion true.

So you're the only one who's right and everyone else is wrong, right?

I'd rather have a religion that doesn't bend then one that accepts every hair brain idea to be "inclusive".

Kinda like Christianity taking all kinds of pagan traditions and assimiliating them so that people in different regions would follow it?

[Thorin]

Christianity preaches "love thy neighbor". If I claim to love God and claim to follow Christ, I will follow His example. Jesus said, "He who claims to love me but hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him". The validity of our faith towards others must be free of this hypocrisy. So yes, the actions and the "good" in a religion must play a part. However, most religions have this as a foundation and good works should be an outward result of the inward change.

If one is not living up to the truth as he perceives it or realizes it, then 'what is truth' doesn't really mean much. God will wink at someone's ignorance if they live up to the light they know and don't know any better. The Christian (if you believe Christianity to be true) who knows that truth and alters, destroys or doesn't live up to it will not be saved. Claiming to be a Christian does not mean your foots in the door. Our heart must be changed and that will be shown by our works.

That is why I have such a problem with some of the hypocrisy and biblical misinterpretation coming out of Christianity today. It really leaves a bad taste in the mouths of others and regardless of whether Christianity is the truth, how can people accept it as truth when it is being horribly distorted? We have a huge responsibility and alot we will be held responsible for.

[HLGStrider]

The teachings of Jesus were manipulated and twisted by the church in order to establish and insure its own earthly power.
I don't think you can see this twisting. The church wasn't really a power until long after the gospels were written.

If you wanted God's help, you had to go through the Church.

I never got this out of the Bible. I don't know how you did.

"Pure soul" doesn't mean innocent baby, it means a soul devoid of imperfection. An "angel" or "saviour", not a human.
So, you believe in original sin. I thought you didn't because you seemed to think Jesus was just an inspired man. Early on it seemed you were saying it just took someone being perfect and having a pure soul. . .you didn't mention anything about angels. . .and angels can fall too, you know. Satan did.

I never said you get to Heaven by "being good". You get to Heaven by "being good and having faith in God". But believing in God and being a jerk to everyone here on Earth won't get you anywhere either. You sure like to pick and choose what you respond to.

Actually, the Bible is written a lot clearer than your writing. You said the point to Christianity was 'Love your neighbor.' If that isn't what gets you to God, then why is it the main point?

And for my own personal use, can you tell me where Christ or anyone else says "You do not come back"?

I think I can. . .I'll get to work on it. . .

Krishna doesn't beat around the bush and confuse people like Jesus does in the Bible).

He doesn't confuse me. I don't know why he confuses you. Though I do believe Christ couldn't have just come out and say he was God. He had to prove it first.

Well lynching heretics (inquisition), preaching xenophobia, and killing off anyone who gets in their way (crusades) sure aren't making Christianity look very good.

But founding charities, spreading a message of love across the Roman empire, improving conditions for women, children, and slaves within that empire, etc. . .makes them look good.

I guess its true that you don't report on dogs that don't bite.

So you're the only one who's right and everyone else is wrong, right?

Brother, Cir, you are such a spin doctor, no matter who Athelas wants to pin that on. I believe I'm right on a lot of things, otherwise I wouldn't believe them. I believe I'm probably wrong on somethings (but I don't know what they are or else I wouldnt' believe those things). There are some things I don't know for sure. I don't see how that makes the fact that some things are right and somethings are wrong any less true.

Kinda like Christianity taking all kinds of pagan traditions and assimiliating them so that people in different regions would follow it?
They didn't do all that much. ..though partially this is because they assimulated people. When you convert a group they dont' immediately or sometimes they never abandon their traditions.

And I draw a line between traditions and ideas. I think there is a huge difference.

I do believe, as Thorin says, that if we really believe, it will show. How can I hide a city on a hill? . .I still think that there will be believers who make mistakes, sometimes terrible mistakes, and even people who say they believe but don't.. .and I think it would be ridiculous to judge the truth of the religion by the actions of those people.

For instance, I dont' just Islam by the terrorists. We've been told not to do this again and again. I judge Islam by the fact that I don't believe it is true. Same with Hinduism. ..There are VERY violent Hindus out there. India is torn apart by violence right now. If you really judge religions by the works they do, Cir, as you say, then why do you like Hinduism?

[Ciryaher]

I never said I didn't like what Jesus has to say, and I have never advocated pacifism (silly belief, in my opinion). I posted this in another thread, but after thinking about it, I recognize that Jesus was God. No qualms or doubts. :)

However, that is not to say that I think that the Bible is absolute truth. It is still, to me, somewhat tainted by mistranslation (deliberate or accidental) but the message of Christ, in general, is as it was intended.

[HLGStrider]

I didn't mean violence of the sort you would be a pacifist to be against. . .

One can be against crashing planes into buildings without being a pacifist. One can be against the Spanish Inquisition without being a pacifist. Those are both forms of violence.

I meant the kind out side of wars and self-or-others defense.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
I posted this in another thread, but after thinking about it, I recognize that Jesus was God. No qualms or doubts. :)

Cir, if you believe that Jesus is God (note the tense of the verb ;) ), how do you explain that His message got warped or modified? He is All-Powerful, right? Therefore, if His message got warped, it is because He allowed it; that is a reasonable theory. But then you have His own words, which I quoted in another thread, claiming that:

He would be with us all days;
He would send the Spirit of Truth;
His church would teach all nations;

etc.

There are many other instances in which Jesus (and the Apostles as well) affirms the authority of the Church -- the most well-known being that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it".

He is not only All-Powerful but All-Knowing, if He is God. And so he was aware of the entire course of human history, past, present and future, when he said those things. So you can't say that He was mistaken about the course his church would take; God can't be mistaken.

The "bug in the system" is that we only know Jesus' words thought that very Church; if you doubt the Church, you doubt the Scripture, and you fall into the position that no one really knows what Jesus said; and that therefore you can pick any belief you want to pick. There are many more writings about Jesus than what is in the Bible; and many writings are as old as the Bible itself. It is only by the authority of the early Church (guys who met and lived with Jesus) that we can trust which books are more reliable and which aren't.

Add to this the fact that those guys from the early Church who met and lived with Jesus died horrible deaths under torture and pain, and had simply to recant from what they said to be free from that horrible death, and the argument for the veracity of the early Church's claims becomes very, very strong. The alternative is mass hallucination.

Note also that the gnostics were not as persecuted as the Christians in that period; and as soon as they began to be persecuted (I'm not sure exactly when; the only instance I can remember of persecution of a gnostic-like faith is the Albigensian crusades, some 1000 years later), they disappeared and abjured their beliefs, unlike the Christians, who preferred death. It puts the "Christian evidence" in another light.

[Ciryaher]

I believe in free will, and that humans are free to do good...and they are free to do evil. If the Church is infallible, then why was there an Inquisition that was advocated by the Church in that part of the world? Why Crusades? If God didn't want his Word to be twisted, sure, he could have stopped it, but that would prevent the free will of men. To prevent the free will of men would prevent them from looking at the actions of the Church (such as burning "heretics" alive, taking indulgences, etc) and say "This is wrong" and move to reform, to protest. Do you forget that your "perfect" Church was the cause of the Protestant movement, or do you believe that the Church was justified and was following the Scripture at that time?

[Eriol]

Hmm, I was discussing the inerrancy (or lack thereof) of the Bible, not the sins of the Catholic Church... My post was aimed at your comment that the Bible's message somehow was twisted in the historical process. No Catholic would say that the Church is without sin; for everybody there is a sinner. The Catholic claim of infallibility is very, very well defined technically, and though non-Catholics just love to say that the Inquisition and the Crusades disproves it, it does not touch it at all.

Crusades and Inquisition are a subject for another thread, or so I suppose... and they have their own thread already (at least the Crusades have a thread in the Time Lords).

I'm not saying that Jesus (God) could have prevented His word from being twisted and chose to not do it to preserve free will; I'm saying that Jesus, the historical Jesus (Who is God), said that he would not allow His word to be twisted. It is not an ethical argument, it's historical. Jesus said that. The free will argument applies to every instance of evil and sin in the world; but if God has said in the Bible, "Eriol will not sin in October the 6th, 2003", then you can be sure he would not let me sin today ;). And this is what he said regarding the magisterium of the Church; he guaranteed it with His own authority.

The magisterium of the Church is not its practice, or its administration; the Church is covered with sins, as we all know and grieve about. But when the Church teaches, She is infallible.

There were a lot of bad things that needed reformation in the 1500's Church; as there were things reformed in the 1200's, the 1000's, the 700's, etc. etc. But the teaching was infallible thoughout.

And that means that in answer to this:

Do you forget that your "perfect" Church was the cause of the Protestant movement, or do you believe that the Church was justified and was following the Scripture at that time?

I don't know if she was justified; I don't know if she was following the Scripture at the time; but I know, with the authority of Jesus' words behind it, that she was teaching the Christian doctrine at the time; and that she does that even today.

The infallibility is about doctrine, not about practice.

(By the way, most of the heretics burned in Europe were burned in Protestant countries; thanks to the Inquisition for that ;). A fascinating subject...)

[Ciryaher]

Ok, you're really confusing me here, and I think that we're running around in circles on the same track...

Here's where I stand:

Jesus preached The Word

The Word is The Law

The "Church", as I am using it, is the hierarchy of priests etc and NOT the community of Christians. A gathering of the Faithful, and their beliefs, is the Church...the "Church" is the Papacy, Inquisition, Crusades, priesthood, et al. (not just Catholic, either)

The "Church" has preached lies and distortion.

These lies and distortions are not The Word.

These lies and distortions remain in some forms still today (such as the "Church's" Eucharest ceremony).

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Ciryaher
However, that is not to say that I think that the Bible is absolute truth. It is still, to me, somewhat tainted by mistranslation (deliberate or accidental) but the message of Christ, in general, is as it was intended.

What about the Bible? The Church may have preached lies and distortions (I'm not agreeing; it is beside the point), but is the Bible tainted? Can we trust Scripture?

[Ciryaher]

Well we have to be wary of wording. Translations of translations of translations; translated once, reverted, and then retranslated; translated by different people who saw a different connotation in a word....a text 2,000 years old (roughly, and that's just the New Testament) can't escape contextual mistranslation. Even today, with the glory of mass-communication, we still misinterpret even people speaking our own language!

To read the Bible, you have to read carefully and say, "Jesus has been speaking like so and so for much of the time, but this wording here doesn't quite fit...judging by his general attitude, what is really meant here?" One cannot take it as complete literal truth...that is simply ridiculous. What may have been intended as "late afternoon" in Aramaic may have become "afternoon" in Greek, "early evening" in Latin, "evening" in German, and "night" in English...these things happen, of course, and so you have to be on your toes. Beyond simple mistranslation is anachronism, and changing vocabulary.

The Bible is not, of course, part lie, part truth. It is all truth, though some things may not be exactly as they were in the original context, but the roots (all important) remain intact.

[Eriol]

We agree on the fundamentals then :). The words -- the original words, in the case of the New Testament, the Greek words used -- are inerrant; they are completely true. The translation and the interpretation have no such guarantee.

The rest is Catholic x Protestant controversies that are out of place in this thread (I suppose). But the important stuff was sorted out now, thanks :).

[HLGStrider]

Beyond simple mistranslation is anachronism, and changing vocabulary.

I think this is rarer than you probably think, Cir.

[Athelas]

Clearly, there are some religions who definitely don't want to be judged by what their followers have done in the world.

[HLGStrider]

Clearly some people think it is an illogical way to judge a religion, and personally, I don't think that is a very good arguement, Athelas, attacking the oppenant rather than the arguement. You can do better.