Well I see why Catholics are not real christians.

[PennySycamore]

I understood it differently than you did: The maker wanted to express that, against current views on the Catholic church, the church is no enemy of science.

Btw, creationism is no believe Catholics are required to hold, and most don't, and the current pope doesn't either.

Gregor Mendel was a priest, too... while we're talking about Catholic scientists.

That's the way I read it, too, lilith.

I think it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said true faith and true science did not contradict each other. Most Catholics have taken that to mean that new scientific developments and theories are nothing to be scared about. They merely reflect a deeper understanding of faith.

[treemom]

This sounds a lot like me saying "There are lots of things Americans do that I don't like. So despite being born here, living here, working here and being a citizen of only America I am just going to say I am from Tennessee. America is just not the same as Tennessee."

[2xx1xy1JD]

Nein, sir/ma'am/!

I meant Christian and Catholic... different religions. Christianity is a religion on its own and believe different things than Catholics but Catholics are called "Christians" because they believe in Christ and stuff but that's like saying Death Metal and New Metal are the same... Sure, they share a root but they are completely different.

I'm trying to figure out if this is a language issue or a bang-head-against-wall problem.

WTF does it mean to say that Christianity is a religion on its own?

Once upon a time, there was a schism between Rome and Constantinople, leading to separate Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Later, Henry the 8th created the Anglican church, since he couldn't get divorced in the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation, which led to the formation of the various Protestant denominations and their separation from the Roman Catholic church.

All of the above are Christian. If someone is defining themselves as "Christian" as opposed to Catholic, they are likely Protestant. Catholics didn't cease to be Christian after the Reformation.

[2xx1xy1JD]

QFT. There are few things that infuriate my (Episcopalian) mother more than when someone starts asking her, "Are you a Christian?" Because she knows, based on experience, that it almost never means, "Are you a member of a denomination that identifies Jesus Christ as the Messiah, such as the Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox church, the Baptist church, the Methodist church, the Episcopal church, the Amish, et cetera?" It's a wink wink, nudge nudge code for, "Are you my brand of Christian, namely, are you a born-again, evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christian?" Because as far as the asker is concerned, only those types of Christians are real Christians, anyway. I find it incredibly obnoxious, and I'm not even Christian any more! The equivalent for me in Jewland is when I see Orthodox people using phraseology like "Torah Jews" or "halachic Jews" or even "observant Jews" (because you can be an observant Reform Jew- I personally know a ton of them). The connotations of the last one can vary a lot based on context, but the first two are almost never used, in my experience, in anything but an exclusionary way. "Torah Jews" is the worst. Ugh.

As for the discussion itself, I only see one person who's actively trying to argue that Catholics and Christians are two separate, mutually exclusive categories. For the record, I absolutely consider Catholics Christians, along with pretty much every other mainline denomination. The only case I know of where I can kind of understand why some people would balk at lumping them in with the broader range of Christianity would be Mormonism, but that's because there's a whole set of doctrine there, along with whole additional sets of scriptures, that is profoundly different from anything else in Christianity. Historically, the Mormon church did for a while purposely differentiate itself from Christianity as a whole, as well (and actually, I would have similar feelings about the JW's). But that's more of a theological discussion for me than, "Neener, neener, you're not Christian!" I mean, call yourself whatever you want. Catholicism is so completely mainstream, though, I don't see why it's even up for debate.

FTR, I will use terms like halachic Judaism or traditional Jewish law or observant Jews specifically to avoid saying Orthodox. I grew up around traditionally observant Conservative Jews, and see observance as something quite distinct from a denominational label.

[Maggie Mae]

I'm trying to figure out if this is a language issue or a bang-head-against-wall problem.

WTF does it mean to say that Christianity is a religion on its own?

Once upon a time, there was a schism between Rome and Constantinople, leading to separate Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

Later, Henry the 8th created the Anglican church, since he couldn't get divorced in the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation, which led to the formation of the various Protestant denominations and their separation from the Roman Catholic church.

All of the above are Christian. If someone is defining themselves as "Christian" as opposed to Catholic, they are likely Protestant. Catholics didn't cease to be Christian after the Reformation.

And yet they are both classified as metal & rock.

Christianity is anyone who believes that Jesus is the son of god. That's It.

Definition of CHRISTIANITY

1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

[Muriel]

This.

Yes, the catholic church led the Holy Inquisition and it's a great shame in Catholic history...

[Anxious Girl]

If it wasn't for Roman Catholics (the 1st accepted Christianity in the world by governments of countries) there would be no Puritanism. Why are fundies not able to grasp this?

[Coconut Flan]

I've spent a lot of time with fundies explaining church history. It takes time, patience, and baby steps. One of the biggest hurdles for many is how the Bible came to be. They don't really know. I think the lack of knowledge of church history prior to 200 or 300 years ago plus plain not thinking is a major problem with too many fundies. Plus they have an amazing willingness to accept and parrot the leader of the moment.

[jenny_islander]

This thread reminds me of an anecdote from Michael Stackpole about the time he (or was it a fellow game designer?) tried to explain to a group of concerned parents that Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons was selling them snake oil. He had a volunteer come up and play D&D. He rolled some dice, had her roll some dice, announced that the villain had put her character under some type of mind control spell (can't remember which), and asked, "Now, why aren't you actually hypnotized?" The answer out here in Thinking Land, of course, is, "Well . . . because it's just a game, like chess or go fish." The answer the woman gave, of course, was "Because the Holy Spirit protects me!"

The jargon, thought stoppers, and fearfearfearFEAR of anything outside the group are all classic markers of destructive cults.

[casterly]

Yes, the catholic church led the Holy Inquisition and it's a great shame in Catholic history...

Um, I'd guess that they're talking more about the medieval Christians' (and other eras') pogroms and blood libels against the Jews...?

And as for the person saying the Catholic Church has no "frightening, fundy, creeptastic" history, I'd suggest learning some more about that history because it's not pretty. Popes having mistresses/kids is "naughty." The Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, etc. etc., are most definitely not.

[Cran]

While I do not want to mitigate the crimes of the CC, the Inquisition was actually not that bad as it is often painted. The Spanish Inquisition was infamous for its crimes (especially towards Jews, who where forced to convert and burned if suspected to be reprobates), but in other countries, the Inquisition was actually a step forward towards orderly court proceedings. The Italian Inquisition hardly condemned anyone to death.

And witch hunts... those are no CATHOLIC phenomenon, the Protestants were also very apt in it, and most times, the wordly authorities led the witch trials.

[pixydust]

While I do not want to mitigate the crimes of the CC, the Inquisition was actually not that bad as it is often painted. The Spanish Inquisition was infamous for its crimes (especially towards Jews, who where forced to convert and burned if suspected to be reprobates), but in other countries, the Inquisition was actually a step forward towards orderly court proceedings. The Italian Inquisition hardly condemned anyone to death.

And why is that not so bad, exactly? Jews had to get out of Spain or convert or die. That's pretty freaking bad! As for being kicked out of Spain, it's not lie these were people who had just immigrated, we are talking people who had been there for many generations now had to find new countries.

I'm hoping that you didn't mean it (or maybe this is just a sensitive issue with me) but your post comes off to me as "Oh, it's just the Jews, that's not important. The Italians had it good so it's ok!"

[Cran]

I only wanted to make the point that is is historically incorrect to talk about THE Inquisition. The countries had it very differently, and I pointed out that the Spanish Inquisition was cruel to Jews, but in other countries, this wasn't the case, because they operated independently from each other - so in these countries, the Inquisition was a great advancement above laws that still had God's judgement (by hot water,f or example) in it and set no limits to torture (which the Inquisition did, as it limited anonymous complaints).

[pixydust]

I only wanted to make the point that is is historically incorrect to talk about THE Inquisition. The countries had it very differently, and I pointed out that the Spanish Inquisition was cruel to Jews, but in other countries, this wasn't the case, because they operated independently from each other - so in these countries, the Inquisition was a great advancement above laws that still had God's judgement (by hot water,f or example) in it and set no limits to torture (which the Inquisition did, as it limited anonymous complaints).

When people refer to The Inquisition, it is normally the Spanish Inquisition, just like when people refer to the Holocaust, they are speaking of the Nazi Holocaust. I do get your point, there is stuff like that that drives me crazy. I do have to say that even if some countries had improvements to their court systems due to the Inquisition, any time someone's religious choices are stepped on, it's not a good thing.

[Cran]

If "people" talk about the Inquisition and generally refer to the complete Inquisition "people" have it wrong.

Looking at the past with today's standards in mind will lead to inadequate results. Today, religious freedom is seen as a very high human right - in the past, it wasn't. So if we look at the Inquisition, for example, we have to look at the complete picture, as far as we are still able to gauge it. Statements like "Well, they did trample on religious freedom!" and add nothing more are technically correct, but contribute little to understanding the organisation. Just like the crusades are, from a modern point of view, a great injustice, they did advance contact between cultures and scientific advancement. Good and bad applied as blanket terms on persons, times or organizations will lead to insufficient understanding, because things are not that simple.

[treemom]

While I do not want to mitigate the crimes of the CC, the Inquisition was actually not that bad as it is often painted. The Spanish Inquisition was infamous for its crimes (especially towards Jews, who where forced to convert and burned if suspected to be reprobates), but in other countries, the Inquisition was actually a step forward towards orderly court proceedings. The Italian Inquisition hardly condemned anyone to death.

And witch hunts... those are no CATHOLIC phenomenon, the Protestants were also very apt in it, and most times, the wordly authorities led the witch trials.

And for a period of time Dutch Protestants prevented Catholics from openly worshiping as well.

I am not aware of a religion that hasn't participated in such things.

[pixydust]

If "people" talk about the Inquisition and generally refer to the complete Inquisition "people" have it wrong.

Looking at the past with today's standards in mind will lead to inadequate results. Today, religious freedom is seen as a very high human right - in the past, it wasn't. So if we look at the Inquisition, for example, we have to look at the complete picture, as far as we are still able to gauge it. Statements like "Well, they did trample on religious freedom!" and add nothing more are technically correct, but contribute little to understanding the organisation. Just like the crusades are, from a modern point of view, a great injustice, they did advance contact between cultures and scientific advancement. Good and bad applied as blanket terms on persons, times or organizations will lead to insufficient understanding, because things are not that simple.

To me it's the same as the crap about slavery not be "that bad" because the slaves were fed and clothed. Do we have to look at the entire picture? Of coarse! But the positive does not negate the negative. Times when people have been treated horribly and killed for their beliefs (be it religion, politics, or civil rights) are a blight on humanity. I'm thankful for the advances, but just like I can't say "That Mengel guy did a lot, who cares how many people died for it!" I can't justify things like the Inquisition.

[Cran]

You misunderstood me. I do not want to "justify" the Inquisition. No matter if we like something or not, we should look at it as unbiased as possible, and if we're looking at historical phenomenons, acknowledging the bad things AND the good things will lead to the most accurate appraisal. Even the worst things in history can lead to positive changes - that does not make the things that happened better, but it doesn't make the positive changes worse, either.

If those changes could have been brought about in another matter is an entirely different question and futile, because they weren't.

[FaustianSlip]

I would probably have more sympathy for this argument if it weren't virtually identical to the kind of thing I read on places like Fisheaters and Tradcath all the damn time. This is typically followed up by anti-Semitic garbage about Zionist conspiracies, accusations of deicide and lengthy debates as to how to determine whether a convert from Judaism to Catholicism is "genuine" or merely an infiltrator looking to bring down Mother Church (and, with it, Western Civilization itself). As it is, that is virtually the only context in which I've heard this particular plea to look at the Inquisition in a "balanced" way, so I'm prepared to admit that

To me, saying that we need to be "balanced" in looking at the Inquisition isn't all that different than saying that we need to be "balanced" in looking at the Great Leap Forward, because although millions of Chinese people died (and millions more were forcibly exiled to the countryside, never to return), it helped create an industrial economy in China. There are people to this day in places like Spain and Latin America who are discovering Jewish ancestry that's been masked for hundreds of years because people were so terrified and traumatized at the time of the Inquisition (sorry- the Spanish Inquisition) that even their descendants didn't dare let on that any attempt had been made to preserve their Jewish heritage or traditions. Being pedantic about terminology doesn't really minimize that, IMHO, and I for one find it pretty offensive to try and argue that the fringe benefits of the Inquisition in other countries somehow makes up for what happened to the Jews and other non-conformists of Spain. And I do think that ultimately, that's what pleas for "balance" in discussing the lasting impressions of the Catholic Inquisitions as a whole are: the reason the Spanish Inquisition has become the legacy of the Inquisitions as a whole is precisely because what happened there was so horrific. Obviously, this is subjective to some extent, but I find it a bit disingenuous to come in and gloss over what happened by saying, "Oh, but we should be impartial. Not all of the Inquisition system was so terrible." The European settlement of Native American lands had good stuff come out of it, too, but that doesn't really make up for the smallpox if you happened to be Native American.

[emmiedahl]

Catholic history prior to the Reformation is *Christian* history; no one in the Western world had broken off, and all were one group.

A lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. Even Buddhism and more "peaceful" religions. People are assholes and they will grab at any justification to justify their hatred and anger. I don't personally think religion is the real cause, just the official reason. Either religion is a terrible and dividing thing, or we are a terrible and divided species. I lean toward the latter, personally.

[BlondeAgent007]

Catholic history prior to the Reformation is *Christian* history; no one in the Western world had broken off, and all were one group.

A lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. Even Buddhism and more "peaceful" religions. People are assholes and they will grab at any justification to justify their hatred and anger. I don't personally think religion is the real cause, just the official reason. Either religion is a terrible and dividing thing, or we are a terrible and divided species. I lean toward the latter, personally.

QFT

[2xx1xy1JD]

Catholic history prior to the Reformation is *Christian* history; no one in the Western world had broken off, and all were one group.

A lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. Even Buddhism and more "peaceful" religions. People are assholes and they will grab at any justification to justify their hatred and anger. I don't personally think religion is the real cause, just the official reason. Either religion is a terrible and dividing thing, or we are a terrible and divided species. I lean toward the latter, personally.

I can't think of any atrocities perpetrated by the Baha'i faith, although they've certainly been on the receiving end in Iran. Perhaps you can say that the current faith builds upon previous faiths that did have a violent past, but it's a pretty distinct faith on its own now.

I do agree, though, that in most cases, just blaming religion is a cop-out. It's human beings who form groups and attack other groups, who compete for resources, who don't tolerate others and who have a certain amount of bloodlust. I was just watching a film at the Hockey Hall of Fame last weekend about the 1972 Canada-Soviet hockey series, and they seriously made it sound like a religious event, justifying an awful lot of goon violence in the process.

[meda]

Catholic history prior to the Reformation is *Christian* history; no one in the Western world had broken off, and all were one group.

A lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of every religion. Even Buddhism and more "peaceful" religions. People are assholes and they will grab at any justification to justify their hatred and anger. I don't personally think religion is the real cause, just the official reason. Either religion is a terrible and dividing thing, or we are a terrible and divided species. I lean toward the latter, personally.

Actually, there were a number of splinter Catholic groups persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church prior to the protestant reformation, such as Cathars and Lollards; not to mention the divide between the churches in Rome and Constantinople which led to a significant amount of bloodshed.

[2xx1xy1JD]

To me it's the same as the crap about slavery not be "that bad" because the slaves were fed and clothed. Do we have to look at the entire picture? Of coarse! But the positive does not negate the negative. Times when people have been treated horribly and killed for their beliefs (be it religion, politics, or civil rights) are a blight on humanity. I'm thankful for the advances, but just like I can't say "That Mengel guy did a lot, who cares how many people died for it!" I can't justify things like the Inquisition.

The comment about the Crusades advancing contact between cultures reminded me of a conversation that I had with an old man in Krakow. He told us that someone once asked him where he managed to learn several languages, and he replied "in the university" as he rolled up his sleeve to show the number tatooed on his arm at Auschwitz.

[heinz57]

About the Crusades, I enthusiastically recommend Amin Maalouf's "Crusades Through Arab Eyes"

http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Through- ... 0863560237

It's non-fiction but a really easy read, and it's a great eye-opener on how the Arabs saw the events.

(not breaking the link because it's Amazon)