It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ignorance denied? Christianity is being a Catholic?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
This is not a massive opening post but more of an actual question to address something that I have noticed about many of the members of this site.

Why do many members on ATS think that Christianity is defined as being catholic?

As far as I am aware there are multiple different practices within christianity including, catholic, protestant, mormon, evangelical, orthodox and so on and so forth.

Is this due to complete ignorance as I cannot think of anything more and it seems than many who claim to adhere to this sites values of ignorance denied are actually contributing to ignorance when it comes to religion being discussed.

Please do not turn this into some sort of debate on what religion is better or if you believe in god or do not etc.
I would simply like to know why it seems that so many members from all walks of life who claim to know religion is BS, the truth, control or whatever, believe that christianity is being a catholic. Nobody would get away with saying something like "A female is a feminist" without being flamed so why is this commonly tolerated in many religious topics etc.

Thank you in advance for a hopefully good bunch of on topic replies.



[edit on 14-3-2009 by XXXN3O]




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I think that kind of mindset is frequent among Europeans or others, whose Christians are pre-dominantly catholic?

You just have to explain it to some of them.
After all, the pope said ONLY Roman Catholics are true Christians......



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
If that were the case then does that not mean that many non religious people are actually following what the pope believes in terms of what christianity actually is?

I guess it could also mean that they have rejected catholic values but they are actually retaining some of them whether they realise that or not.

Willingly or unwillingly they are still really following a particular view either way unless they educate themselves before commenting on the subject.

This is what I am trying to do with this thread if someone is on that boat as well as others who may be on a different one.

Here is a particular thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take a look at some comments and you will see my point if you read the facts of the article.

Kinda hypocritical thinking is it not?

Or just plain ignorance??

[edit on 14-3-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Thanks for editing your post, but the original tone seems to belie your 'point' to broadly generalize. If you'd like to know the 'facts' rather than the interpretations, look up the Protestant Reformation and the history of the Catholic church. I doubt the answers here will deviate much from that.

As a former Catholic, that's what I was told.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
So the catholic church has the say on christianity because the catholic church was the founding church of christianity. Where you get this from I do not know.

Regardless of your beliefs here you have actually contributed to my point.

This is exactly what I am talking about!

Thanks.

Nice edit, thanks for reminding me to use the quote option in future but at least you have seen my point.



[edit on 14-3-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Thanks for editing your post, but the original tone seems to belie your 'point' to broadly generalize. If you'd like to know the facts rather than the interpretations, look up the Protestant Reformation and the history of the Catholic church. I doubt the answers here will deviate much from that.

As a former Catholic, that's what I was told.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by TravelerintheDark]


Read up on who founded christianity.

wiki.answers.com...

After all the start is what is important.

I edited my post to point out the fact that you edited yours after my reply instead of posting a further reply.

Even if it was the John you spoke of before your edit, that itself is irrelavant to the catholic church being the founder as you stated.

If you read my opening post you will see that my point is to actually state that many on this site believe christianity is in fact catholicism.

Christianity has many forms.

Read a little up this thread at my reply to another member after my op.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by XXXN3O
Read up on who founded christianity.


Jesus founded no church, nor any religion I'm aware of. He was a teacher and built no temple.

Is that to say that there were no Christians before Catholics? Of course not. But who edited the Bible, the supposed teaching of Jesus? Check out the Council of Nicaea.


The First Council of Nicea is believed to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.


en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by XXXN3O
Even if it was the John you spoke of before your edit, that itself is irrelavant to the catholic church being the founder as you stated.


Actually, I said Peter.


Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter, who Jesus named as the "shepherd" and "rock" of the Church.


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by XXXN3O
If you read my opening post you will see that my point is to actually state that many on this site believe christianity is in fact catholicism.


I did read yours and gave an honest answer. Did you read mine? Because your original response certainly didn't imply that. I really don't need someone telling me what I do and don't believe based on a single post here at ATS.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
No, you don't have to be Catholic to be a Christian. The Catholic Church did not found Christianity.

Ac:11:26: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Anyone who places their faith in Christ and his teachings is IMO a Christian. ie; a follower of Christ.



[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I think it's simply an overgeneralization, made because the majority of Christians worldwide are Catholics. I think they might even outnumber all other Christian religions put together, so the 'typical' Christian would be a Catholic. Usually, when I'm describing someone's religion, I try to be a little more specific than just 'Christian'. (if I know the specifics) When I think of just the generic term 'Christian', I personally usually think of someone who believes in the Bible and Christ and all that, but doesn't adhere to a particular organized church.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Anyone who places their faith in Christ and his teachings is IMO a Christian. ie; a follower of Christ.

That is an interesting definition, but I wonder how many other 'Christians' agree with that? And what do you mean by 'places their faith in Christ'? Do you mean that they believe that Jesus was Christ (ie. the Messiah)?

I ask, because many many times on this site, I see the opposite of what the OP is suggesting. I see many 'Christians' claim that Catholics are not christian.

What would be the most over-arching and complete definition of 'Christian'? Would it be 'someone who believes in all that is written in the Bible'? But then you'd have to question: which Bible (which collection of books)? They are different depending on whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or even gnostic. And besides, a person who has never read the Bible may very possibly be a 'Christian', even in the sense that you outlined in your definiton.

So I reiterate: what would be the complete and total definition of 'Christian'?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by XXXN3O
Read up on who founded christianity.


Jesus founded no church, nor any religion I'm aware of. He was a teacher and built no temple.

Is that to say that there were no Christians before Catholics? Of course not. But who edited the Bible, the supposed teaching of Jesus? Check out the Council of Nicaea.


The First Council of Nicea is believed to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.


en.wikipedia.org...



Originally posted by XXXN3O
Even if it was the John you spoke of before your edit, that itself is irrelavant to the catholic church being the founder as you stated.


Actually, I said Peter.


Catholics recognize the Pope as a successor to Saint Peter, who Jesus named as the "shepherd" and "rock" of the Church.


en.wikipedia.org...


Originally posted by XXXN3O
If you read my opening post you will see that my point is to actually state that many on this site believe christianity is in fact catholicism.


I did read yours and gave an honest answer. Did you read mine? Because your original response certainly didn't imply that. I really don't need someone telling me what I do and don't believe based on a single post here at ATS.


Your quite the poster.

Ill give you that.

If all posters on ATS where the same, they would post one reply then we would all edit our texts completely to respond to each other.

Can you imagine how much sense this site would make if we all did that.

Actually you did say John but I did not think you were so fly to change your text completely and like I said you have reminded me why we have a quote option to reply to others.

I am not going to tell you what to believe and have not done so in this thread that is not my point to you or anyone else.

The point is simple many do believe that there is only catholicism in christianity and frequently make comments that follow catholic views despite them claiming to be complete athiests!

Edit: spelling, catholicism

[edit on 15-3-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
John the baptist was a forerunner of Christ and Jesus claimed that he was the greatest of all the prophets. Jesus seemed to have carried out the religion of the baptist and told his disciples to continue on with the practice.
As far as a church goes, Peter proclaimed that he believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus said, "on this rock I will build my church". This did not make Peter the founder of the church. Jesus claims, right there, that he was. What he meant was that the faith which Peter exhibited was what was going to be the fundamental belief of the church.
Paul said that Jesus is the head of the church. The catholic "church", by claiming the pope as the head, have established an anti-christ. They were able to maintain this position by banning the reading of the Bible by ordinary Christians.
The Councils, starting with the infamous council of Nicea, was a further attempt to squash independent thought. The Reformation was a result of the Bible getting into the hands of people, who could see for themselves the error of the anti-christ system. Free thinking was limited by the relentless pursuit for power by that system and is alive and well at this moment. It is spoken of in the Book of Revelation as the woman clothed in scarlet and purple who rides on the back of the ten-horned beast. She is pictured holding a golden cup and being drunk on the blood of the saints. The cardinals wear the scarlet and the bishops wear the purple, in the system of the anti-christ.


[edit on 15-3-2009 by jmdewey60]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
No JdDewey that description in revelations is rome and Vatican 11.

Not the teue church of christ which is the Catholic church. This is why it spread throughout the world as the OT and NT predicted and why it's the only church that holds the living sacrafice.

as Daniel himself talked about the continual sacrafice being taken away during antichrist.

That's communion. The reason souls outside the Church myself inculded cannot get to heaven is because Jesus wll not enter souls fully withoiut communion which I have literally felt myself.

a real latin communion, not the new mass.


Like I said, communion is biblical, it goes as far back to Daniel, malachias and the Psalms.


and he Christ himself said (do this until I come)

meaning have mass.

another fact is, remember when Jesus said to say these words?

and the apostles said.


" who can say these words and follow it "

Because mass is said, it's about an hour long, it takes time to learn and follow.


When Jesus said upon this rock.

why didn't he say that to the other apostles? because it's a succession of Peter.

another fact is that God told them specifically.

" to lose and bind things on Earth "

meaning whatever doctrines they found baised on a group of bishops filled with the holy ghost interpreting scripture, they had the ability to lose on Earth.


whoever can't see this is truly blind IMO and wants to deny the church for the sole fact that it's (too hard) to be Cathlic.

It's not hard, it's reawrding.

but again all you souls will hopefully if you are still alive witness the rebirth of this church and see it flourish in the fututre as many saints prophecied and the bible as well.


and he also gave the apostles the power to forgive and retain sins


Retaining a sin means that they had a jurisdiction to be a keeper of a soul in the sense of their vocation. This is undeniable and whoever denies John 20 is just not sincere.



also I expect as usaul to see no Catholics on BTS. Where are you all at?

Is it only me?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
and if you're a real Catholic you are called to be a saint and what communion does to someone is in my signature.

that girl is the definition of innocent saints. She was a true angel.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I will re-iterate the point of this thread once more given some info from the replies. Thanks

Why do some atheists in particular see christianity as catholicism?

I understand from some replies now why a catholic would but what about Athiests?

Is it because they were former catholics and do not know of other faiths within christianity?

Ignorance?

I would like to know.

Thanks

[edit on 15-3-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Anyone who places their faith in Christ and his teachings is IMO a Christian. ie; a follower of Christ.

That is an interesting definition, but I wonder how many other 'Christians' agree with that? And what do you mean by 'places their faith in Christ'? Do you mean that they believe that Jesus was Christ (ie. the Messiah)?

I ask, because many many times on this site, I see the opposite of what the OP is suggesting. I see many 'Christians' claim that Catholics are not christian.

What would be the most over-arching and complete definition of 'Christian'? Would it be 'someone who believes in all that is written in the Bible'? But then you'd have to question: which Bible (which collection of books)? They are different depending on whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, or even gnostic. And besides, a person who has never read the Bible may very possibly be a 'Christian', even in the sense that you outlined in your definiton.

So I reiterate: what would be the complete and total definition of 'Christian'?


Well, the word Christian literally means "Follower of Christ" or "From Christ". Just like "Martian" means "from Mars". I'd say this is an accurate definition. Of course everyone wants to think they belong to the right sect, and that's where we get the debate about the word.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

But then follower of Christ could cover a very wide group of people. Heck, I could consider myself a follower of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I find your tolerance to be a good thing, but I get the feeling that not everyone shares your open-mindedness.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

But then follower of Christ could cover a very wide group of people. Heck, I could consider myself a follower of Christ.

Don't get me wrong, I find your tolerance to be a good thing, but I get the feeling that not everyone shares your open-mindedness.


Well, actually maybe you're right, I'd like to add to that definition that not only are they a "Follower of Christ" or "From Christ" but they also believe him to be Divine or the Messiah.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JesusisTruth
 

I suppose my posts are slightly off-topic but it may have a certain relevancy because it addresses the question, if people believe that the Catholic Church represents Christianity. Now, if you were an atheist, the difference between Christ and the anti-christ is purely academic, as there is no god, in the first place.
To continue with my thoughts and to respond to JesusisTruth:
Easton’s Bible Dictionary says of Peter:
“There is no satisfactory evidence that he was ever at Rome.”
On the topic of Peter being given special powers that only he had, Jesus goes further, to say to the other Apostles, in Mathew 18:18, “Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says:
Here, what had been granted but a short time before to Peter only is plainly extended to all the Twelve; so that whatever it means, it means nothing peculiar to Peter, far less to his pretended successors at Rome. It has to do with admission to and rejection from the membership of the Church.
Going back to Peter’s proclamation of faith, people who accept this truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, will be admitted into the Church and those who do not believe, have no reason to be admitted.
The whole thing about the mass being what Jesus instituted at the Last Supper is debatable. One thing I could be sure of, is that it was not given in Latin. If you study the history of the Mass, you will find out that the position of Pontiff existed before the era of Christianity. The mass, as it has been practiced most of the time, is the adaptation of a pontifical ceremony that had nothing to do with the God that we know of as the Father of Christ. The cup is a symbol of an oath to fidelity. By participating in the mass, you show your devotion to the false god that is empowering the anti-christ system.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by jmdewey60]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join