What Is Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Umar001
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 66
  • Views Views 10K
But the path which Jesus layed out can be interpreted by this Spirit, that's the whole point. What you deem astray is your interpretation, not neccesarily wha the Spirit has lead others to interpret 'astray'. This is what I am saying.

I dont get why you say you follow no other prophets because I havent seen that ever, maybe you could elaborate.
 
But the path which Jesus layed out can be interpreted by this Spirit, that's the whole point. What you deem astray is your interpretation, not neccesarily wha the Spirit has lead others to interpret 'astray'. This is what I am saying.

I dont get why you say you follow no other prophets because I havent seen that ever, maybe you could elaborate.

Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation

1)

The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven

2)

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

You even have each author in the top of each chapter

3)

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.

Scriptures are more of a letter of introduction to God, and not the ultimate authority that Protestants hold them to be. That authority authority was given to the Church that canonized the Scriptures.

4)

Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

If you know a secret formula for a chocolate cake, and transmit it to your sons, and your sons to their sons and so on and further on....the formula will be preserved in your family tree ( genealogical tree )

5)

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light

To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?
 
Assalamu Alaykum,

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

there's a difference between misinterpreting and reading out of context, so no they will not become a terrorist even if they read it literally

God knows best
 
there's a difference between misinterpreting and reading out of context, so no they will not become a terrorist even if they read it literally

God knows best

Reading a passage of the Quran in context does not mean just reading it with the preceding and following verses.

You have to also know the sha’ne nozool, i.e. the historic context, why and in what occasion Muhammad said a certain verse. That is why you have tafseer.

Tafseer is the interpretation of the Quran. Tafseer means interpreting, clarifying, expounding. It is derived from fasara, which means "to explain, to open or to unveil"

Many books of tafseer have been written.

Does this mean that you can't interpret the absolute word of God, the Verbatim Word of God ?
 
Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation

Wa Alaykum Salam and thank you for your contribution and I am glad you recognise the following to be your faith's interpretation.

1)

The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven

Agree.

2)

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

You even have each author in the top of each chapter

Ok, well the supposed author.

3)

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.

Scriptures are more of a letter of introduction to God, and not the ultimate authority that Protestants hold them to be. That authority authority was given to the Church that canonized the Scriptures.

Well the Scriptures are the writings of Jesus' teachings. Therefore they are, as Jesus' teachings an ultimate authority, are they not? Their interpretation is what you claim to have authority over too.

4)

Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

If you know a secret formula for a chocolate cake, and transmit it to your sons, and your sons to their sons and so on and further on....the formula will be preserved in your family tree ( genealogical tree )

You state: 'Jesus only left us with what He Taught his apostles & disciples Himself.' Is that not what the Bible contains? If so then isn't this authoritative?

As for the line, I understand the concept, though I dont think it happened as such.

5)

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light

That is your interpretation. That the rest is bad is what you understand Jesus' message to be. The whole of the above is what you interpret, and your Church. But others hold claims different from yours but just as valid to an outsider.

To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

No I don't see, the style of interpretation is not an or/either matter, some parts maybe literal others maybe parables and such things. There are rules on how to interpret the Qur'an, not interpreting the words literally does not mean that they are interpreted in any manner, rather, they maybe interpreted in a way the Prophet himself, meaning God, since the Prophet is God's representative intended them to be interpreted.

But also interpreting them literally makes one a fundamentalist, which is one who holds to the fundamentals, this is not bad, is it?

But I dont know why you think it would make them a terrorist, a terrorist is one who causes terror, if I interpret 'love your enemy' literally do I cause terror?

The difference here is that the Qur'anic interpretation is based on evidences which have to be provided. Now, I agree this is also a part in Christianity, source critisism and so forth, but Christianity gives the reader of the Bible an option, to interpret the text according to the Holy Spirit, the individual's teacher, now, this cannot be tested, since if the Holy Spirit/God tells an individual 'love your enemy' means x.y.z how can we debate that!?

And God knows best.
 
Welcome Delta to the forums, We need a few catholics here, so hope you enjoy your stay!
 
The fundamental Christian doctrine is quite simple really.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.


The differences lie in ritual and the importance of works vs. faith. The Catholic/Protestant schism did not come about over a difference in doctrine, but the corruption of the Catholic Church i.e. the selling of indulgences and other issues.

The fundamental Christian doctrine is easily recognized, and those who do not follow the fundamental doctrine are easily recognized.
I agree that all Christians (as commonly accepted) believe in the above stated portion of the Nicene Creed; however, not all would agree with all of the unstated last part:

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
 
Assalamu Alaykum,

Before anything else I'm a Roman Catholic, so I give our faith interpretation

The bible was made by man, by inspiration of God, it is not the verbatim word of God, we don't claim that the bible is a absolute word of God

Jesus Christ did not come and promise us a book. If Christ had wanted us to be "people of the book," as Muslims call us, then He would have written one.

But instead He promised us the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, which is the guiding force of the True Church that Christ established.


Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,


The bible didn't came down from heaven in a cloud or in a angel hand, and there is no copy of that book in heaven

absolutely agree!


Catholicism doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

Jesus only left us with what He taught his apostles & disciples Himself. Most of which have been passed down to us from (Catholic) bishop to bishop, and in the many writings of the early church fathers.

Early church (all 'Catholic' -word Catholic meaning "universal") fathers listened to the apostles, were taught by them, and had their (bishops) authority passed to them by the apostles themselves.

God is Spirit, a book is a book, and CAN KILL YOU

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2 Corinthians, 3-6

It was the Church who made the bible and not the contrary, IT WAS NOT the bible who created the church

Outside the church there is no Bible, just a multitude of sects, heresies, gnosticism, all due to bad interpretations

That's what is meant by Holy Spirit assistance, because God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light


and yet the Roman Catholic Church brings us:

The Catholic Inquisition

Rafael Rodríguez Guillén


To say that the INQUISITION, the most fearful scourge of persecution in history, which the Catholic Church hath used against genuine Christians, whom she has been silencing and censuring for centuries, is still in existence in the 20th century, imposed by Catholicism, is a very different subject to comprehend, and taboo; because of (the) historical ignorance and the excommunications which those who are dedicated to the truth suffer. These faithful Christians fear not to speak their conscience, and undertake the great task of speaking the truth and opening the eyes of thousands of Catholic believers, who have been falsely educated concerning the truth about the Catholic Inquisition and its consequences.

source:

http://christianprogress.com/7.htm

and:


THE INQUISITION:
A Study in Absolute Catholic Power

Arthur Maricle, Ph.D.

"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration." {Revelation 17:6}

Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.

This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation.

The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture, the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians 10:4 ("For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal..."), Catholicism built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal (fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.

Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Muslims, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.

To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of history.

When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.

By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

[Pope] Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Muslims, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Muslims (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces.

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A

This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.

It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term "heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by death."C

From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.D

Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the founder of the Dominican order of monks.

The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.E

The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's Catholic powers.

The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used, which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever since.

Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that "conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket ball or of baptism."

Everywhere it existed, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition spread its tentacles of fear.

When an inquisitor arrived in an area he called for reports of anyone suspected of heresy, sometimes offering rewards to spies who would report suspected heretics. Those suspected were imprisoned to await trials. The trials were held in secret and the inquisitor acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury. The accused had no lawyer. It was often simpler to confess to heresy than to defend oneself, especially since torture was often employed until the accused was ready to confess.

Because church and state had not been kept separate, the church powers could call upon the government to use its power against the convicted heretics. Anyone who fell back into heresy after repentance was turned over by the Inquisition to the regular government to be put to death. Most of those condemned to death were burned at the stake, but some were beaten to death or drowned.

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.F

Even after the death of a victim, his punishment was not ended. The property of condemned heretics was confiscated, leaving his family in poverty.

It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it."G

In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.

Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"H

Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which "ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.I

The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the bizarre.

When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge. Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested was ever acquitted.

Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.J

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815, Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who would challenge the Vatican's authority.

Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure. Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."M

Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and Eichmann."N

Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic weekly declared:

Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and death over the archtraitor.O

The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession of absolute power. Is it any wonder that in the 1880s, Dr. H. Grattan Guinness preached the following:

I see the great Apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters; I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VII, that Innocent III, that Boniface Vlll, that Alexander Vl, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I hear their insufferable blasphemies, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering away worthless promises of heaven; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable dragonnades, that endless train of wars, that dreadful multitude of massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has brought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has ****ed; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan, as the body and soul and essence of antichrist."P

The challenge I give to Bible believing Christians is to respect the heritage we have been given by those who suffered for Biblical truth, that we may be prepared to suffer ourselves. Ours is the generation that may yet again be afflicted for the faith once delivered to the saints. If such is to be our privilege, let us face our trials with this promise of our Lord fresh upon our hearts: "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." {Matthew 5:10}

The challenge I give to Roman Catholics is to take up the New Testament of the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit of God to speak to your hearts. If a Catholic remains skeptical about this brief treatise on the Inquisition, he is certainly welcome to examine for himself the record of history. If he remains unmoved by my conclusions, he is welcome to draw his own. But of far greater import is his need to examine the teachings of his church in the light of God's Word. Jesus leaves you with this warning: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." {John 12:48} You to whom the Bible was so accessible will not be able to plead ignorance in that terrible day of judgment.

source:

http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html


To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

no, i don't but...

counterpoint, when you have:

Catholicism [which] doesn't depend on the bible, there is traditions and magesterium

you get:

Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Muslims, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians.

Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.

The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Muslims (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."

In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."

At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."

The Inquisition was called the sanctum officium (Holy Office) because the church considered its work so praiseworthy.

"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.

This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy."

WHY?

because [the Catholic]God is just a pure Loving Spirit of Light


hmmmm... is that Christianity??


:w:
 
Well the Scriptures are the writings of Jesus' teachings. Therefore they are, as Jesus' teachings an ultimate authority, are they not? Their interpretation is what you claim to have authority over too.

You have the answer by Jesus Himself :

10. And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
11. Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
12. For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath.
Matthew, 13:10-12


Which means only the Church owns the true message of Jesus, and the full and correct interpretation of the bible

You state: 'Jesus only left us with what He Taught his apostles & disciples Himself.' Is that not what the Bible contains? If so then isn't this authoritative?

The Bible doesn't have any authority over the Church, since that the Church owns all the teachings of Jesus, apostles, earliest fathers of the churche...thru traditions and magesterium, transmitted generation thru generation, with the Spirit of God always present

Qu'ran is a little different it is a heavy authoritative book thats takes control over all single aspects of your life


No I don't see, the style of interpretation is not an or/either matter, some parts maybe literal others maybe parables and such things. There are rules on how to interpret the Qur'an, not interpreting the words literally does not mean that they are interpreted in any manner, rather, they maybe interpreted in a way the Prophet himself, meaning God, since the Prophet is God's representative intended them to be interpreted.

You should know better than me how the Qu'ran should be read and interpreted. I just said if the Qu'ran is an authoritative book, something complete, perfect; pure; unlimited; definite, positive; not relative transmitted to man....then it is dangerous not to interpret it correctly

Today every Muslim proudly identifies himself with the titles of Sunni, Shia, Ahle-Hadith, Ahle-Fiqah, Ahle-Quran, Hanfi, Shafi, Malki, Hanbli, Dewbandi Brailwi so on and so forth.

But also interpreting them literally makes one a fundamentalist, which is one who holds to the fundamentals, this is not bad, is it?

It all depends on the message you are reading

But I dont know why you think it would make them a terrorist, a terrorist is one who causes terror, if I interpret 'love your enemy' literally do I cause terror?

You know better than me how to interpret the Qu'ran. For example if you take a verse and you feel uncomfortable with the context of it, .i.e, when there is no space left to other interpretation than literally.....then you know what I mean

You should, for example read the New Testament, and then the Qu'ran, for example Sura 9, and make your own conclusions


The difference here is that the Qur'anic interpretation is based on evidences which have to be provided. Now, I agree this is also a part in Christianity, source critisism and so forth, but Christianity gives the reader of the Bible an option, to interpret the text according to the Holy Spirit, the individual's teacher, now, this cannot be tested, since if the Holy Spirit/God tells an individual 'love your enemy' means x.y.z how can we debate that!?

I don't understand what you mean

Love your enemies just means that we must pray for them, not fight back, not accusing others, etc...do to others what you would have them do to you

God Bless
 

hmmmm... is that Christianity??


:w:

You shouldn't discuss history but rather faith matters.

Inquisition must be understood correctly and you must know very well all single aspects of history. For example, successive threats of schism that the Pope received from kings and queens in that period of time. They wished to control Inquisition for political aspects rather than for faith. It is a long, long debate.

As for Islam, a historian Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization,

describes the Muslim invasion of India as "probably the bloodiest story in history."

The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush ("the slaughter of the Hindu") as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.

Is this Islam ?

It is very dedicated issues
 
You shouldn't discuss history but rather faith matters.

Inquisition must be understood correctly and you must know very well all single aspects of history. For example, successive threats of schism that the Pope received from kings and queens in that period of time. They wished to control Inquisition for political aspects rather than for faith. It is a long, long debate.

As for Islam, a historian Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization,

describes the Muslim invasion of India as "probably the bloodiest story in history."

The North Western region of India is called the Hindu Kush ("the slaughter of the Hindu") as a reminder of the vast number of Hindu slaves who died while being marched across the Afghan Mountains to the Muslim slave markets in Central Asia. The Buddhists were also targeted for destruction. In AD 1193 Muhammad Khilji burned to the ground their famous library and the Buddhist stronghold of Bihar.

Is this Islam ?

It is very dedicated issues

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i was responding to your comments
:

To understand that the writings can kill you, let me ask you :

The Qu'ran is the absolute word of God revealed to man...so it must be clear of bugs(errors). Absolutely the verbatim word of God

How does the muslims interpret the Qu'ran ? literally or not?

If it isn't interpreted literally then they make changes and adulterations to the verbatim word of God by their own choice

If they make it literally they will became a fundamentalist and a terrorist

Do you See ?

no, i don't but...

in the case of Catholicism the Church itself is the terrorist. and more to the point, what some misguided Muslims do is VERY DIFFERENT from what the "Catholic" church does. the Catholic Church claims it's authority from God, and thus it's actions MUST be held up to that claim, whereas Muslims or anyone else that doesn't follow the Qur'an & the Sunnah WILL ERR!

it's kind of simple really: to say "i am the Pope, and i speak for god" means that all the lies, deceit, murder, rape and terrorism committed by the Popes and their followers become part of their religion.

Perhaps you prefer "some other form" of Catholicism?
.
.

:w:
 
in the case of Catholicism the Church itself is the terrorist. and more to the point, what some misguided Muslims do is VERY DIFFERENT from what the "Catholic" church does. the Catholic Church claims it's authority from God, and thus it's actions MUST be held up to that claim, whereas Muslims or anyone else that doesn't follow the Qur'an & the Sunnah WILL ERR!

ACTIONS, that's what is all about, but don't talk about the past because I gave you just a single example, there is a lot of more. But that is history, and I'm here to discuss faith rather than history

Since we are in the present, XXI century, what type of actions do you thing that are bad or evil from catholics ?

it's kind of simple really: to say "i am the Pope, and i speak for god" means that all the lies, deceit, murder, rape and terrorism committed by the Popes and their followers become part of their religion.

You should read that book of Will Durant - The Story of Civilization -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

Do you have that feelings about catholics by your own, or is rather based on what was transmitted to you by others ? in which sources do you support your hate about catholicism ?
 
ACTIONS, that's what is all about, but don't talk about the past because I gave you just a single example, there is a lot of more. But that is history, and I'm here to discuss faith rather than history

but this church claims to Gods chosen agent on earth, so the history of their actions will either confirm or deny this...

Since we are in the present, XXI century, what type of actions do you thing that are bad or evil from catholics ?

got any nazis in the church? how about pedophiles?

You should read that book of Will Durant - The Story of Civilization -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant

Do you have that feelings about catholics by your own, or is rather based on what was transmitted to you by others ? in which sources do you support your hate about catholicism ?

i was raised Catholic mate...

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

the histories and the mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church, in my humble opinion are the PROOF that Christianity has been derailed and is no longer a valid option for worshiping the One True God. i studied many "forms" of Christianity over the years but came to the conclusion, long before Allah guided me to Islam, that none of the present churches even follow what the bible currently says, let alone what Jesus more likely said.

:w:
 
Delta. How do you feel about papal infallability?
Are you into that?

There is a common believe that the Pope is infallible all the time, and that is wrong. The pope can have his own opinion about a issue just like anyone else, the infallibility comes out only when Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, literally "from the chair", i.e., to all the churchs and catholic communion

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

It was only used a few times in history, and the secret "ex cathedra" formula is well knows, it uses always this words :

by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own:

We declare, pronounce, and define that
....(here then is the infallible dogma and teaching)

you can see that in few Papal bull, as I said, that infallibility was used only a few times in history, here is one of them : Ineffabilis Deus Bull

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm

As for the reasons, that is another history, to make it simple imagine :

There is a important theological issue, and there is no consensus and general agreement on that

You make your FATWA and I make mine

On which should a regular person believe and follow ? yours or mine ?

There is when the Roman pontiff speaks "from the chair" - ex cathedra
 
There is when the Roman pontiff speaks "from the chair" - ex cathedra

Forgot to say

in humility and fasting and a lot of praying to Holy Spirit assistance by the Roman pontiff

not just : Hey man lets make a statement, without any praying or fasting
 
Hi,

This is a question I have been pondering, can Christianity be pointed to? As I understand Christianity cannot be debated, refuted or destroyed in its totality by most. I say this because according to the Bible Jesus has left such a wide idea of what it is to be Christian that anyone can claim to be a christian and claim almost anything to be his theology.

Does anyone see what I'm saying?

Yes, I see what you are saying.

I refer you to this bit of research from the Barna Group:
Two religious groups, in particular, are known for knocking on people’s front door to discuss religious beliefs: Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. While both groups consider themselves to be Christian, many organizations have labeled each a cult in response to some of their unorthodox beliefs and practices. A new study from The Barna Group explores the religious and demographic background of these two groups and shows that they differ significantly from the born again Christian population in a variety of respects.

A Profile of Jehovah’s Witnesses

About the only perspective that Witnesses share with the larger body of born again Christians is a belief that their religious faith is very important in their life, a view held by nine out of ten people from both groups. After that point of concurrence, the gap widens.

It begins with the fact that only 7% of Jehovah’s Witnesses meet the criteria for being born again. Most Witnesses say they have made a personal commitment to Christ that is important in their life, but only one out of every ten of those adults base their hope of salvation on a confession of sins and acceptance of Christ as their savior. Interestingly, the issue is not that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in earning their way to an eternal reward: in fact, they are significantly more likely than born again adults to reject the notion of salvation earned through good works.

While more than nine out of ten born again adults believe that God is the omnipotent and all-knowing creator and ruler of the universe, just three-quarters of the Witnesses (76%) concur with that view.

Witnesses are almost 50% more likely than born again adults to strongly believe that Satan exists (61% versus 42%, respectively). They are more likely than born again adults to argue that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth (77%, compared to 63% among born agains). They are also much more likely to have a firm conviction that sharing their faith with other people is a personal responsibility (74% compared to 54% among all born agains). They also have widespread faith in the Bible, with a higher proportion (88%) contending that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (71% among born again people).

In terms of their faith practices, Jehovah’s Witnesses are comparatively more likely to gather in small groups during the week (75% do so, double the incidence among born agains). They are also significantly more likely to read the Bible during the week (83% do so) but are also more than twice as likely to be unchurched at the moment (28%, roughly double the born again proportion).

Demographically, Jehovah’s Witnesses are substantially different from the born again community in that they are less likely to get married; much less likely to hold conservative political and social views; and are a decidedly downscale group (only one-third as likely to have graduated from college, and their household income levels are one-quarter below the born again average). The Jehovah’s Witnesses community is predominantly non-white (62%) and is shockingly removed from the political process: only 29% are registered to vote, compared to 87% among the born again constituency.

A Profile of Mormons

The Mormon faith perspective parallels the prevailing born again view in various ways. For instance, more than nine out of ten Mormons have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they describe as being important in their life; nine out of ten say their religious faith is very important in their life; and two-thirds affirm the sinless life of Christ on earth.

However, there are significant variations from the views of the born again population, too. Comparatively few Mormons believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of its principles (32%). A majority believes that a good person can earn their way into Heaven. They are less likely to view God as the all-knowing, all-powerful creator and ruler (83%). They also are more likely to believe that Satan exists (six out of ten), and that they have a personal responsibility to share their faith with others (64%).

Compared to the born again body, Mormons are more likely to attend church services in a typical week (73% do so) or to attend a Sunday school class (nearly double the born again average). They are also more likely to volunteer at their church in a typical week.

Demographically, they are concentrated in the western states (76% of Mormons live in those states); remain overwhelmingly white (85%); three-quarters are married (versus about 61% of born agains); and are more likely to be conservative on social and political matters. They also have annual household incomes that are about 8% higher than the born again average.

One controversy surrounds the fact that one-third of Mormons (31%) meet the born again criteria. A number of evangelical leaders assert that although Mormons seek a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, their refusal to trust wholly on God’s grace and forgiveness through Christ as the only means to salvation disqualifies them from being born again.

Religion and the Fine Line

George Barna, who conducted the research and presented the findings, noted that in the religious world seemingly small matters can make a big difference. "All three of these groups claim to be Christian, uphold the importance of faith and spirituality, are active in their churches, generally believe in the same God, and accept the holiness of Jesus Christ," Barna commented. "Beyond that, there are huge difference related to central doctrines such as the means to eternal salvation or the reliability and authority of the Bible. The differences are large enough that the members of each of these groups tend to reject the other groups as heterodox and not being representative of the true Christian faith.
It seems you have to have some common idea as to what is meant by the term Christian for one group means one thing and one group means another by it. Until you can agree on a common definition, it is hard to point to something and say this is Christian and that isn't. But of course, if you had a common definition you would already be in agreement and wouldn't be likely to be asking the question for in coming up with that definition you already deciding what you will be pointing to and excluding as being Christian. And by what authority does anyone arrive at their definition being to be preferred over another's other than personal preference? We might say that we let the Bible or Jesus decide, but then we still have to agree as to what they decided for they are unable to speak aloud for themselves, but only as we interpret them which leaves us back at the same question mark we began with.

I could get several million people to agree with me, perhaps even a billion, but I wouldn't get everyone and that one would freely tell the rest of us that we were all wrong and they were the only ones to have it right. I suspect this is true of religions besides Christianity if one were to examine how some claim to be Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, but are rejected as not being true Muslims, Hindus or Budhists by other practicioners of those faiths.
 
Last edited:
It seems you have to have some common idea as to what is meant by the term Christian for one group means one thing and one group means another by it. Until you can agree on a common definition, it is hard to point to something and say this is Christian and that isn't.
What definition for Christian do you accept? What criteria puts one within that realm and another outside?
I suspect this is true of religions besides Christianity if one were to examine how some claim to be Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, but are rejected as not being true Muslims, Hindus or Budhists by other practicioners of those faiths.
I accept one as Muslim who says that, "Allah is the only One worthy of worship and that Muhammad was His Servant and Messenger". I am very reluctant to call anyone who professes this statement to be a kafir or unbeliever.
 
Last edited:
I am not sure that the definition given by Wikipedia is completely accurate:

Christianity
is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Christian_viewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew/Old Testament.

Are there any Christians out there who agree that this is accurate and complete? If not, what definition do you offer?
 
I havn't read all the posts, but for starters Christianity has vastly altered (for the western world) itself during the years. Understandable that it has to adapt, but there should be some limitations, the very fact it has been altered is why it is meaningless to many.

Also there is a huge arguable theory that battles against Christianity, there is a mix of different ancient faiths containing very similar deities to Christ. Some are born around the same time, had the same chosen names (anointed one, lamb of God etc) and also die and resurrect in a similar fashion.
The point is that there have been thousands of generations for thousands of years consisting of many faiths, having emotions that are identical in their worship.
Even the story of ''Noah's Ark'' appears to have similarities with the ancient poem, ''the epic of Gilgamesh'' which dates back to around 1500BC.

The Christian religion is seen by some as a 'hybrid' faith.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top