Praying to god, jesus, and the holy spirit?

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joc

@ Joc
"The Didache (written in AD 50) affirms the Trinitarian view of God and says so in how we baptize."

Wrong as usual, you put the most optimistic apologetic dates on things don't you. Not dated unequivocally to 50CE as you state but rather a date anywhere from late 1st century CE to 250CE."The Didache reveals how Jewish Christians saw themselves and how they adapted their practice for Gentile Christians" To coin a phrase of yours JoC context is all...

"Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Ephesians in 110 AD also calls the Father and the Son (Jesus) as God and hinted (though not explicitly) at the divinity of the Holy Spirit."
Lets look at a Catholic site in the context of the victory of the Pauline church over the Gnostic and Adoptionist creeds....an insight into his (and your) prejudice is contained in this quote The controversy with the Gnostic Christology was no mere battle over simply propositional matters for Ignatius. To him, the issues that were involved had to do with the truthfulness and reality of the Christian faith itself and touched on the foundation of man’s salvation: the real, physical incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of the historic person Jesus Christ. Without these things, Ignatius would insist, mankind is woefully lost. https://evangelicalcatholicity.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/the-christology-...
It really reflects your one eyed approach to your faith does it not?

I could carry on demolishing you piecemeal, however the war between Trinitarians, Gnostics and Adoptionists became very real after the adoption of the Creed at the Council of Nicea. Look up your history and take off the blinkers JoC...for your own sake..

" So no this trinity didn't simply pop up randomly. " I never said it did . Don't be dishonest.

"It's been there since the early days of Christianity and has endured until today." And so has Adoptionism, now subsumed into the Islamic tradition, and the JW's who are (though they don't know it) Arians of a type, re invented.

I suggest you look at the fate of the Cathars JoC...let me know what you found, no doubt you will come back and tell me that they had a stern talking to from a loving priest or two and all repented, without a life being lost.

Now, lets look at your last claim..." the secular courts carried out the trial and the punishment" Wrong again in detail. here's an extract from Wikipedia that sums it up:
"This is a list of people burned by various religious groups, after being deemed heretics. The list does not attempt to encompass the list of those executed by burning (such a one would include many other people such as victims of witch hunts or other persecutions). The law of the Catholic church forbade any inquisitor to kill heretics. Some laws allowed the civil government to employ punishment (Grolier encyclopedia vol. 5 page 436-437.) After they were convicted by the Church, they were turned over to the local government for execution because of religious restrictions that kept ecclesial clergy from actually carrying out the executions."

You are correct the inquisition and the church merely obtained confessions, and ensured the full penalty of the law was applied, the laws that the Church wrote and enshrined in legislation.

This kind of handing off of responsibility is the refrain you have been singing in all these threads. You seem incapable of understanding that the Church ruled, and ruled absolutely where it could and would not tolerate opposition or alternative thought. You are an apologist JoC, an apologist of the most craven and cowardly type.

JoC's picture
"Wrong as usual, you put the

"Wrong as usual, you put the most optimistic apologetic dates on things don't you. Not dated unequivocally to 50CE as you state but rather a date anywhere from late 1st century CE to 250CE"

- Even if we put it in that date range, it would still be pre-Nicene, which is what I was trying to show. For arguments sake, I won't argue on that point since the point I was trying to make still holds even with your timeline.

"Lets look at a Catholic site..." and then procedes to link a non-Catholic site. Go to their "About" tab and the one thing that rings a bell and I know I'm not on a Catholic site is when they spell it with a lower-case c as in "catholic" instead of "Catholic". Even in grammar class, this hints at the word catholic being used as an adjective meaning universal as opposed to the proper descriptive word, Catholic which refers to the Catholic Church.

"I could carry on demolishing you piecemeal, however the war between Trinitarians, Gnostics and Adoptionists became very real after the adoption of the Creed at the Council of Nicea. Look up your history and take off the blinkers JoC...for your own sake.."

- But... as we've established, the Didache mentions the trinitarian view way before Nicaea.

"" So no this trinity didn't simply pop up randomly. " I never said it did . Don't be dishonest."

- What you did claim was that the Trinity was a view pushed onto people after Nicaea. This is simply not the case.

"The law of the Catholic church forbade any inquisitor to kill heretics. Some laws allowed the civil government to employ punishment (Grolier encyclopedia vol. 5 page 436-437.) After they were convicted by the Church, they were turned over to the local government for execution because of religious restrictions that kept ecclesial clergy from actually carrying out the executions.""

- This is great! As it does in fact demonstrate my point. The heretics were executed by the secular courts. NOT the religious courts. I will admit that the only reason the secular courts would do this was that the government deemed that heresy was a crime punishable by death. Separation of church and state wasn't much of a big deal before but it was getting there(context). As heresy was a crime, it would naturally fall to the church to determine if they were heretics. When they did, they had to turn them over to the state. Another thing to note is what would categorized as heresy.

Simple teaching an unorthodox view of Christianity was NOT considered heresy and is not even today. Many church officials and even popes have held heretical views. It's the steadfast, consistent rejection of orthodoxy that gets proclaimed as heresy. Also, heresy cannot be committed by non-Catholics. In other words, it's not easy to be deemed a heretic. You could even say, they almost wanted to be called heretics.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: JoC - "This is great! As

Re: JoC - "This is great! As it does in fact demonstrate my point. The heretics were executed by the secular courts. NOT the religious courts. I will admit that the only reason the secular courts would do this was that the government deemed that heresy was a crime punishable by death. Separation of church and state wasn't much of a big deal before but it was getting there(context). As heresy was a crime, it would naturally fall to the church to determine if they were heretics. When they did, they had to turn them over to the state. Another thing to note is what would categorized as heresy."

ROFLMAO..... Soooo.... You are perfectly okay with the fact the church would hand over heretics to the secular courts knowing absolutely full well that their punishment would be a horribly gruesome death. And the crime was merely that of not following church doctrine and/or speaking against the church. To put it another way, a person totally deserves to be burnt alive for talking bad about the church.

At the same time, you also seem perfectly okay with the fact that in today's day and age the church goes to extreme measures and spends untold amounts of money to hide and protect their own higher clergy folks who are child molesting pedophiles. These men have physically and emotionally scarred countless children with their deplorable acts, and most of those children will never recover from the trauma inflicted upon them. Oddly enough, though, the church steadfastly REFUSES to turn over any of these sick-minded fuckers to the secular courts to receive their just punishments. Instead, the church hides behind the excuse that it is an "internal matter" that should be handled only by "church authorities".

So, to recap, if you are not a church member and you badmouth the church, you deserve to die a horrible death at the hands of non-church authorities. But if you are a high-ranking church member and you fondle and fuck little children, then it is an internal matter, and the secular courts have no business meddling in church matters. Okay, got it. Thanks for helping me understand that, JoC. Now, if you will excuse me, I must go puke and take a shower, because that is some ridiculously nasty shit through which I just waded. And the fact that anybody would ever try to defend or justify that crap is completely incomprehensible to me. And the fact you actually seem HAPPY about the church turning heretics over to the secular courts knowing full well what would happen to them makes it all the more disturbing.

JoC's picture
It’s interesting how you got

It’s interesting how you got all of that from what I say. Dare I say, your bias is showing. You and I have never really had an honest to goodness conversation.

Like I said, to be considered a heretic is not an easy feat. I can tell you however, what heresy is NOT. Simply speaking out against the church or the church heirarchy is NOT heresy. The hurch has even recognized saints (like St. Catherine of Sienna) who have spoken against the pope on certain matters. Many Catholics in good standing today speak out against the church’s heirarchy. You’ll notice the only people who are branded as heretics or are excommunicated are the ones who deny church teaching.

More modern ones involve the person preaching that divorce, abortion or same sex marriage is okay under the Catholic Church. Now, I’m not arguing for the morality of these acts. But the RCC teaches that these are wrong. And if people in authority preach otherwise, they are branded as heretics or excommunicated.

Excommunication is NOT and has never been a punishment for immoral behavior.

I actually think most of these will just go over your head as it’s been clear to me time and time again that you are incapable of having an honest conversation with me.

Tin-Man's picture
@JoC Re: "Dare I say, your

@JoC Re: "Dare I say, your bias is showing."

Ahem...*clearing throat*... Just as I recently requested of Calhais when he made the same comment in another thread, would you be so kind as to specify which bias you are seeing? Like I said, I have several, and it would certainly help for me to know which one is in view at any given time. And I still have not had a chance to put them in alphabetical order. So much to do, so little time...

Re: "You and I have never really had an honest to goodness conversation."

Lord knows it ain't for lack of tryin'. As usual, you really have a way of cracking me up sometimes, JoC. *chuckle* About that whole "honest" part in the conversations, though. The thing is, as I have said a couple of times before, you are like some type of super-ninja, matrix-type, acrobatic contortionist when it comes to trying to get a straight answer from you. It is quite impressive, really, in a rather warped and disturbing way. You should run for office somewhere. You would make a great politician. Oh, and just out of curiosity, exactly how have I not been honest with you?...*puzzled look on face*...(JoC - "... it’s been clear to me time and time again that you are incapable of having an honest conversation with me.") I do not recall ever lying to you about how I feel or what I believe. Matter of fact, I dare say there have been numerous times when I have been absolutely brutally honest. Not exactly sure how it is my fault or my problem if my honesty makes you uncomfortable. Still, if there is anything in particular about which you feel I have been deceptive or dishonest to you, I sincerely would like to know so that I may correct the misunderstanding.

Re: "You’ll notice the only people who are branded as heretics or are excommunicated are the ones who deny church teaching."

Oh, okay. So, simply speaking out against the church during the good ol' Inquisition Days was not heresy? Cool. That is a relief to know. My bad. Sorry about the mix-up. So it was only those who denied church teachings who deserved to be tortured and burned alive. Ahhhhhh.... I get it now! Phew! That's MUCH better. Glad we got that cleared up.

Re: "I actually think most of these will just go over your head..."

Hey! Was that a short joke? I mean, I know I'm not very tall, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this conversation. Oh, well, never mind. Doesn't matter. Because no matter how short I may be, none of that could ever really go over my head. It actually just oozes around on the ground under my feet. Sometimes it is even in little brown gooey piles here and there. Good thing I make it a practice to wear rubber boots during these exchanges.

arakish's picture
"Excommunication is NOT and

"Excommunication is NOT and has never been a punishment for immoral behavior."

To hell it is not. I was excommunicated three times for what they said was "immoral and godless behavior." When in actuality, all I was doing was asking questions they could not answer.

JoC, you are a liar.

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Dear you do cling to your errors with scratchy little fingernails don't you.?

The point was making, and as I have before , is that Trinitarianism is the latecomer to christian theology, A form of words that pleased the crowds of greeks and others that wanted a 'bit of magic' in their religion. That's as opposed the original Jewish Christians (and don't forget you HAD to be jewish to be a christian until Paul the apostate turned that on its head) who were almost to a man Adoptionist.

Gnosticism grew out of Adoptionism and those two creeds prevailed in the Jewish and Syrian churches and, indeed, in Rome for a century or so. Ignatius (if you can be bothered to read all his writings) seemed to be ambivalent about Gnostic creeds, Polycarp was gnostic (although that wasn't the title) in the main although he firmly clung to the early church teachings which were nascent trinitarianism although not given that title.. It wasn't until the ascent of christianity in the 4th century CE and the declaration of the Arian (gnostic) heresy in 325 CE that the nicene creed was established to cement Trinitarianism as the controlling theology of the Roman (pauline) ...note ROMAN...church.

Please read our earlier threads when I have given you citations and references. I don't propose t do it again. Either you are wilfully ignoring scholarship and evidence or you have short term memory problems.

"- What you did claim was that the Trinity was a view pushed onto people after Nicaea. This is simply not the case"

Everything else was declared anathema, books were to be burnt,heretics to be executed if they didn't recant...what the hell JoC? denial, denial, that is all you have. Read your history...I asked you to read about the Cathars...bet you haven't. Or the Montanists? Bet you haven't...

I have demonstrated in earlier threads that the Adoptionist creed survived into late in the 8th century, gnosticism is with us today, but only after the Roman church attempted with, fire, sword and violence to extirpate the competing (and older) creeds. Note " Within five years of the official 'criminalization' of heresy by the emperor, the first Christian heretic, Priscillian, was executed in 385 by Roman officials

As to your last two paras especially the one beginning "this is great"
Are you fucking serious? The church controlled whole swathes of territory from the 4th Century onwards, it wrote the secular laws , and still attempts to influence them today. in 1834, Spain, the last remaining government to still be providing the Catholic Church with the right to pronounce and effect capital punishment, formally withdrew that right from the Church." Note JoC it was the Catholic church that had the right or not to pronounce the death penalty JoC....Blasts your apologetics to hell where they belong.
Are you seriously saying that it was ok to for the CHURCH to TORTURE men woman and children in wholesale quantities for their thoughts. Then, hand them over to the Catholic civil authorities to be executed by fire, garotte or anything else they fancied? That cleans the church's hands does it? Allows you to back into your bubble does it?
Are you fucking kidding me?

And your last ridiculous paragraph is so mealy mouthed and sycophantic I threw up a little in my mouth...here's the refutation.

"Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith (sola scriptura), that faith alone can lead to salvation (sola fide), that the Pope does not have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, that the Catholic Church is not "the sole Church of Christ", and that there is no sacramental and ministerial priesthood received by ordination, but only a universal priesthood of all believers

You would be back to torturing the poor bastards and having an outside contractor (to avoid responsibility) killing them with days of the ascension of power by the Church again.

Look up culpability JoC....that's you. Excusing murder, torture and hate. The Church was sick from its conception and is sicker now, just the disgust that the Church has generated over the latest scandals and cruelties with baby sales, peadophilia, and abuse in orphanges has caused a worldwide drop in attendances, I hope the Church becomes but a memory for the children of tomorrow.

That the result of apologists like you JoC..people vote with their feet.

JoC's picture
Answer me this. When has the

Answer me this. When has the Catholic church deemed as a heretic someone who is NOT Catholic? Martin Luther was deemed a heretic when he was still Fr. Martin Luther. He broke away only AFTER he was branded a heretic. I daresay, to be a heretic is a very hard thing to accomplish.

As to people who hold sola scriptura, while I believe they hold a heretical view, they would still not be considered a heretic. The church does have this distinction.

As to Paul holding the adoptionist view, this actually comes from a skewed idea of what adoptionism is and Paul’s writings are ambiguous on the matter. If you ask me, I would venture an equally probable possibility to your view that adoptionism was there since the early days of Christianity... it simply wasn’t there at all or at least it didn’t have a solid following. It’s quite possible and probable that Paul’s letter simply weren’t addressing the problem because the adoptionist view simply hadn’t had a stonghold yet.

Back to Nicaea. Book burning after the council. I think book burning is a relatively modern invention. The more probable reason why we don’t have these writings today is... the monks simply didn’t replicate them and they sinply died their natural deaths as with most of the literature from the ancient world. I’ll grant you that people were branded are heretics. But to say that a marginalized group before the year 325 would automatically get power right after 325 and procede to put to death the Arians doesn’t match with historical facts we know.

Constantine was baptized on his deathbed oddly enough by a group that held gnostic and adoptionist views. I can’t see how the Church was effectively able to silence a group that continued to teach their views after Nicaea. It actually became more widespread after Nicaea. I just don’t get how a certain view spreads more if their leaders are all put to the death and their writings burned.

arakish's picture
"When has the Catholic church

"When has the Catholic church deemed as a heretic someone who is NOT Catholic?"

Since its inception.

In fact it still does. Just not publicly. Only to the person. In fact, just this past January, I was called a "godless heretic" by a Catholic priest. And he said some nastier, what was it Tin-Man said about the things theists say?

"It actually just oozes around on the ground under my feet. Sometimes it is even in little brown gooey piles here and there."

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"Answer me this. When has the Catholic church deemed as a heretic someone who is NOT Catholic"

Well if you read my last paragraph, every protestant that ever was, every gnostic that ever was and every adoptionist that ever was. Come on JoC that was one of the silliest comments you have made! Here it is again: "Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith (sola scriptura), that faith alone can lead to salvation (sola fide), that the Pope does not have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, that the Catholic Church is not "the sole Church of Christ", and that there is no sacramental and ministerial priesthood received by ordination, but only a universal priesthood of all believers

So all these non catholics are declared heretic...and a mere two hundred years could have been tried by the Church, convicted and then sent to the (catholic controlled) civil authorities for execution...And let us not forget the books banned in 492CE that had to be destroyed on pain of death...

And I shall repeat this lovely citation in full as you obviously did not read it: The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics.
Further Enumeration of Apocryphal Books:

In the first place we confess that the Synod at Ariminum which was convened by the emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine, through the prefect Taurus is damned from then and now and forever.

Itinerary (book of travels) under the name of the apostle Peter,
which is called The Nine Books of the holy Clement apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Matthias apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Barnabas apocryphal
Gospel under the name of James the younger apocryphal
Gospel under the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Thomas, which the Manicheans use apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Bartholomaeus apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Andrew apocryphal
Gospel which Lucian has forged apocryphal
Gospel which Hesychius has forged apocryphal
Book about the childhood of the Redeemer apocryphal
Book about the birth of the Redeemer and about Mary or the midwife apocryphal
Book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphal
All books which Leucius, the disciple of the devil, has made apocryphal
Book which is called The Foundation apocryphal
Book which is called The Treasure apocryphal
Book about the daughters of Adam: Leptogenesis(?) apocryphal
Cento about Christ, put together in Virgilian lines apocryphal
Book which is called the Acts of Thecla and of Paul apocryphal
Book which is ascribed to Nepos apocryphal
Book of the Sayings, compiled by heretics and denoted by the name of Sixtus apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Paul apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Thomas apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Stephen apocryphal
Book which is called the Home-going of the Holy Mary apocryphal
Book which is called the Penitence of Adam apocryphal
Book about the giant Ogias,
of whom the heretics assert that after the flood he fought with the dragon apocryphal
Book which is called The Testament of Job apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of Origen apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of the Holy Cyprian apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of Jamnes and Mambres apocryphal
Book which is called The Portion of the Apostles apocryphal
Book which is called The Grave-plate(?) of the Apostles apocryphal
Book which is called the Canones of the Apostles apocryphal
The book Physiologus, compiled by heretics and called by the name of the blessed Ambrose apocryphal
The History of Eusebius Pamphili apocryphal
Works of Tertullian apocryphal
Works of Lactantius (later addition: or of Firmianus or of the African) apocryphal
Works of Postumianus and of Gallus apocryphal
Works of Montanus, of Priscilla and of Maximilla apocryphal
Works of Faustus the Manichean apocryphal
Works of Commodianus apocryphal
Works of the other Clement of Alexandria apocryphal
Works of Thascius Cyprian apocryphal
Works of Arnobius apocryphal
Works of Tichonius apocryphal
Works of Cassian, a presbyter in Gaul apocryphal
Works of Victorinus of Pettau apocryphal
Works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocryphal
Works of Frumentius Caecus apocryphal
Epistle of Jesus to Abgar apocryphal
Epistle of Abgar to Jesus apocryphal
Passion (Martyr Acts) of Cyricus and of Iulitta apocryphal
Passion of Georgius apocryphal
Writing which is called Interdiction (Exorcism?) of Solomon apocryphal
All amulets which have been compiled not, as those persons feign,
in the name of the angels, but rather in that of the demons apocryphal
These and the like, what Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his detestable followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the Manichean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistu, Donatus, Eustatius, Iovianus, Pelagius, Iulianus of Eclanum, Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter, of whom the one besmirched Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics or schismatics, whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge is to be not merely rejected but excluded from the whole Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and with its authors and the adherents of its authors to damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema for ever.

"If you ask me, I would venture an equally probable possibility to your view that adoptionism was there since the early days of Christianity.."

One word Ebionites...One word Marcionites. We have had this discussion and you can look up my thread which details the existence of Ebionists right up until the visits to the Temple in Jersusalem by the Early Church elders in approx 265CE. I think you are losing the thread JoC.

"the monks simply didn’t replicate them and they simply died their natural deaths as with most of the literature from the ancient world"

The Nag Hammani library was buried to prevent destruction by the Pauline church...look it up. And Try to find some of the texts listed above.

"But to say that a marginalized group before the year 325 would automatically get power right after 325 and procede to put to death the Arians doesn’t match with historical facts we know."

Are you living in an alternative universe? Christians were mainstream by the turn of the 3rd century. Mrs Constantine was converted relatively early in her life. Constantine declared the faith the official religion of the Empire! Hardly bloody marginalized is it? Are you trying to play a victim card here? Are you reading some 18th century catholic school books?

You do know that the Arian heresy was declared at Nicea? and look at the list of books and particularly the last paragraph that puts the lie to everything you have said here.

I am beginning to think you have a learning difficulty compounded by both fingers in your ears and eye patches on both eyes...or maybe just rose colored glasses. IT IS History, Fact. Not the wishful thinking and apologetics you promulgate in every single post.

Edited for spelling and format.
Edit to include credit: http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

arakish's picture
Thanks Old Man.

Thanks Old Man.

I am stealing this for off-line reference.

rmfr

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
welcome, its not mine,I

welcome, its not mine,I should have put this in my post credit to Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

JoC's picture
I have yet to come across a

I have yet to come across a non-Catholic who was deemed a heretic by the Catholic Church. Like I said, if they started another church sometime down the line, they were still a Catholic when they were deemed heretical.

You’ll notice today that the RCC doesn’t go around calling all protestants heretics. They may hold heretical views but they’re not heretics.

An analogy I could think of is if my grandparents stole the land our house is built on. My grandparents are guilty of landgrabbing (heresy). I may live on stolen land (hold heretical views) but I am not guilty of landgrabbing (heresy).

I will look into the rest of your sources. Thanks for that.

But I still maintain that Christianity was a marginalized group until the Edict of Milan in 313. That’s the fourth century. The fact that this edict existed at all tells you that Christianity wasn’t a widely accepted religion before that. The edict proclaimed that Christianity be tolerated.

I’d like to ask you for your source where it says the opd books were buried to keep them from destruction from the Pauline Church. I’ll grant you that they were buried but as to the reason why they were buried, I’ll need to check your source. In the absence of that, I find it more reasonable to think that those texts simply didn’t gain much traction with the Christian community and ended up dying natural deaths.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - I have yet to come

JoC - I have yet to come across a non-Catholic who was deemed a heretic by the Catholic Church.

Smells like a tautology.

/e I'm guessing your going with the modern Catholic definition, that stipulates a heretic must have been baptized Catholic (and many other requirements that ensure any heretic is a Catholic). But it hasn't always been that way. At one time being a Jew made you a heretic. And back in the empire days, anyone who wasn't Catholic was automatically a heretic.

In fact, at these kangaroo religious trials/hearing in the middle ages, they often started by having the defense establish they were not Jewish; since if you are Jewish you are automatically a heretic.

JoC's picture
Evidence for this?

Evidence for this?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

What part of this staement dd you not understand...for the THIRD TIME : " Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith (sola scriptura), that faith alone can lead to salvation (sola fide), that the Pope does not have universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, that the Catholic Church is not "the sole Church of Christ", and that there is no sacramental and ministerial priesthood received by ordination, but only a universal priesthood of all believers
ergo to hold those beliefs you are heretic..simples.

And to deny centuries of persecution of the Gnosts is plain sticking your head iin the sand. I refernced the Cathars which you blithely ignored...do try to excuse that genocide , please...

JoC's picture
On Protestantism holding to

On Protestantism holding to heretical beliefs, I get you. We understand each other. But individual Protestants aren't considered heretics. They simply hold views which are RCC deemed heretical. There is no contradiction in that. It's like if I stole something from you and gave it to my sisters. What I did was wrong (theft) as is to what the original proponents of sola scriptura and the other views (heresy).

But my sisters would not be guilty of theft. They simply are using something that's stolen. Just as protestants today hold to heretical beliefs.

"And to deny centuries of persecution of the Gnosts is plain sticking your head iin the sand. I refernced the Cathars which you blithely ignored...do try to excuse that genocide , please..."

- Okay. Although this is going way off point in the thread. I won't. Let me get something straight about how heresy was viewed in the past. The church saw heresy as just that - heresy which could possibly endanger people's souls. Now, you could care less about that, being atheist. And that's fine. What did Pope Innocent III do? He wanted to settle the matter diplomatically... until his legate was murdered by the Cathars. This is what prompted the pope to send the crusades.

Now, let's look at how the secular world viewed heresy. This is where things get messy. The state actually viewed heresy as a crime not because of religious reasons but that it was seen as a threat to security of the realm. The state thought it would be better if there were just one belief system. As such, heresy was deemed by the state (not the church) as an act of treason (remember separation of church of state wasn't a thing yet) and as an act of treason, was punishable by death. Now, I'll chime in now and say that I think this was just over the top and it shouldn't have reached this point. Now, the King of France at this time wanted to get back his power from southern France (where the Cathars were) and so he capitalized on this. By the end of the Albigensian Crusade, guess who gained the most power in Southern France - the King.

Do I believe what the Pope did was right? I do not. And I doubt even the Christians thought so. Which shows if you see that not many more Crusades followed this one. It's quite easy to mix a little bit of politics into the crusades and miss what the movement was originally meant to act as - the Crusades were supposed to be defensive in nature.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

Jeez, you are good JoC. That you can wriggle and writhe and then come up with that apologia? It's different today? Is that it? After 1499 years of genocide, ethnic cleansing, suppression of texts, thought and ideals that's the best you can come up with?

Fact: the Roman church has caused thousands of people to be murdered because they disagreed with, or were born into the wrong creed or religion. Their only 'crime'. Undeniable. And yet you deny it.

You continue to deny the cited facts and evidence, and when forced into a corner you prevaricate and excuse, then come up with "its different today"..well explain, wheres the edicts that say heresy is no more than "wrong thoughts" and all religions should be accepted as valid...where is that edict or papal bull? The only reason we still do not have church sanctioned executions and pogroms is because of its savagery and hypocrisy the Roman church has steadily lost adherents, if not political influence since the 10th Century. The ONLY reasons.

Finally you answer me about the Cathars...could you google the King of Frances titles at that time..all of them please? The pope and he were in this genocide together and in full knowledge of what was going to happen to defenceless men. women and children who had no part in anything but their geographical location. And again you miss that entirely and try to lay the blame on the Catholic King carrying out the excuse for dispossession and massacre, as you rightly say it was a "crusade'....against christians.

"the Crusades were supposed to be defensive in nature." Defensive in nature...forgive me, that is so rank that I have to vomit. Do read some real history please. You've been debunked on this subject before.

Sometimes, I really wish I could reach into your head and turn that reality switch to the "on position"

JoC's picture
Yes original purpose of the

Yes original purpose of the Crusades was supposed to be defensive in nature. I won’t deny the later crusades forgot this. And I think either the second or the fourth did have rogue crusaders who did attack innocent lives. They were in the wrong and were in fact denounced and even excommunicated by the pope.

Okay, old man. Could you open your mind justva little bit? Could you entertain the idea that all your biases about the Catholic Church have been wrong? Don’t get me wrong, I live in a Catholic majority country and went to Catholic school. And yet we were taught as much anti-Catholic stories as you were.

When we pressed our teachers on these issues, the answers where always, “Things are different now.” And I grew up with that mindset. I then realized I needed to take a good look at the issues again both from the Catholic side and the non-Catholic side. I then got to see that issues discussed today simply weren’t contraversial back then. I invite you to read some Catholic perspectives on any issue you have. Even on the Cathars and weigh everything you’ve learned.

You’ll see that in the case of tha Cathars, the crusade against them was caused directly by the murder of the pope’s legate. It may sound childish but it was the side of the Cathars that struck the first blow.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"It may sound childish but it was the side of the Cathars that struck the first blow."

Read that slowly and tell me how it justifies the genocide of an entire people of a peaceful faith?
And you were also wrong and my memory did play me false. The King of France did not participate in the 'Albigensian Crusade' and, indeed, prevented his nobles from joining in. It was all Pope Innocent III with no collusion, and in fact some diplomatic opposition from Philippe Auguste. Apologies to the King for such a canard. This leaves the 'Holy Church and the Pope solely responsible for such a terrible act.
Take it like a man JoC. Your church is steeped in the blood of innocents. "It was different then, it is different now" is just the cover for "no excuse". Has the message of your prophet changed? When did Jesus say genocide is ok, but only if you kill a corrupt clergymen first? Even today your Church hides evidence of the destruction of the innocents, the ravening of whole cultures, the theft of lands and wealth, and still you worship at that stinking corrupt altar?

You just don't get it do you? Your faith was supposedly founded on the behest of a "loving god" who ministered to the poor and all that good stuff. And here you are defending a patriarchal, genocidal organisation with absolutely no resemblance to the scriptures you revere.

And by the way I loathe all organised religion equally, because of the clear and unequivocal evidence of their misdeeds.

calhais's picture
Not a tautology, but a

Not a tautology, but a sampling bias.

calhais's picture
I would point out that there

I would point out that there's nothing strictly Trinitarian about the acts there. Beside the presumed understanding that the three are one, plenty of Protestant baptisms work the same way. Thus, the presumption of belief in the Trinity is added in analysis of the book rather than found in its pages.

JoC's picture
You could say that. I would

You could say that. I would say however, that the trinity came from what Catholics call sacred tradition. The RCC had been operating on sacred tradition even before the Bible was compiled and in fact it was through this sacred tradition that Bible came to its current form.

calhais's picture
I suppose the analysis I

I suppose the analysis I referred to would have been made tradition, so I rather agree. Sure, tradition influenced the compilation of the Bible, but there would have been significant political factors at play, too. Constantine I wasn't stupid.

JoC's picture
Interestingly enough, the

Interestingly enough, the compilation of the Bible started way before Constantine was emperor and ended way after his death.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - Interestingly enough,

JoC - Interestingly enough, the compilation of the Bible started way before Constantine was emperor and ended way after his death.

That contradicts your previous claims.

remember when:

  • You cited that lunatic's blog that said the canon was established long before Constantine's birth.
  • You told us it was stretching the truth to say Constantine ordered the constructions of 50 bibles---insulted those who disagreed---then went on to say Constantine did order their construction.
  • You told us that what is contained in Constantine's compilations is unknown despite the fact that some of them still exit.

Why you would think anyone would taken anything you have to say on the matter seriously is beyond me.

JoC's picture
We can go down this road

We can go down this road again but to humour you.

The canon of rhe Bible came by a very slow process. Started way before Constantine’s birth and ended way after his death. In certain things as important as which texts are to be considered sacred, the Church takes it’s time. But it can be shown in the Muratorial fragment (mid 3rd century) that people already recognized a canon that resembled something like the one declared at the council of Hippo.

When I said Constantine didn’t order the construction of the Bible, I meant he didn’t ask that they be made from scratch (an idea I believe you hold, correct me if I’m wrong). But when he asked for some 50 copies to be reproduced, we do have evidence that happened.

I don’t remember claiminng the last one. It’s probably one of the things you twist as you do so very often.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - The canon of rhe Bible

JoC - The canon of rhe Bible came by a very slow process

That contradict the statements of the "expert" you referred us too:

TimONeill - You will need to explain how this could be when the canon of the Bible had already been established long before Constantine was even born.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JoC - When I said Constantine didn’t order the construction of the Bible, I meant he didn’t ask that they be made from scratch

JoC - This theory that Constantine had copies of scripture produced is just stretching things a little too much.

You also told us this wasn't even the case in response to the statement that Constantine has the bible compiled (out of preexisting works).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JoC - I don’t remember claiminng the last one.

JoC - It wasn’t the case that [Constantine] ordered the Bible to be compiled...What this scripture is is not known to us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should get your story straight.

arakish's picture
@ calhais

@ calhais

"What, exactly, does the modern Trinitarian `formula' for baptism entail..."

Matthew 28:19

rmfr

Edit: Oops. Just saw JoC referenced same verse. That's what I get for jumping before the start gun goes off...

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.