Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion? Or is there only bond to christianity been created by blind faith?

If you are christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to christianity?

I have done in depth research on the subject and find it really very interesting. What I find most disturbing is that the majority of the people that are vocal about religion have no clue about what there faith really is. They talk on and on about how God is good and how they love God and Christ without ever realling envoking anything but there own ignorance.

I am a practising Catholic so there is no need to shower me with the sermon of being a heathen.

Since there is a more intelectual crowd here it is my hope that there are those of you out there that know your religion instead of just having faith in it.

So, if there are those of you out there that want to talk about the Christain religion and why and how it changed throughout the ages without getting caught up in it's fanatic trappings, feel free to do so here.

In a word...No.
I would say that nearly 3/4 of Christians have no Idea what the background of Bible. Most have trusted in the tradition and interpretation of the priest and haven't jumped into the details at all.

And that's a shame. Knowledge builds trust on what you know.

it seems that most see the historical truth as an attack and can not cope with the fact that the historical past does not take away from there faith

I think it's that most don't care anyway. Religion is rapidly draining away. Countries are loosing partioners as though there going extinct...and really...they are.

The others...you're correct...they're affraid of exposing their faith to a real test. Inwardly they really do know they don't understand why they do what they do...and to break the tradition would lead them to be ostracized by family.

Family sees it better that they not practice at all than to challendge tradition.

it seems that most see the historical truth as an attack and can not cope with the fact that the historical past does not take away from there faith
Very few Christians are comfortable with any sort of serious scholarship regarding the bible or Christian history/theology. Examples off the top of my head:

Most Christians aren't comfortable, for example, with the fact that large parts of the gospel of Mathew (particularly the Nativity story) were really just copied almost word-for-word from much older, non-Christian mythologies.

Also, any sort of serious examination of ancient Judaism makes Christian theology look pretty wacky. The entire idea behind Christianity is that original sin was preventing people from getting into heaven, so God sent Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself, thus paying everyone's "sin debt." They tend to get uncomfortable once they learn that Jews didn't (and indeed still don't) believe in original sin, don't use sacrifice to atone for sins, and generally didn't even believe in any sort of heaven or hell afterlife. What's more, Judaism doesn’t even have any sort of "devil" character - the devil is a Christian invention. Most Christians are taught that Christianity is a natural extension of Judaism, and get very uncomfortable when they start to learn that isn't the case at all.

Generally once people get a taste of where any sort of serious scholarship leads, they back off because they prefer what they were taught in Sunday school.

Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion? Or is there only bond to christianity been created by blind faith?

If you are christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to christianity?

I have done in depth research on the subject and find it really very interesting. What I find most disturbing is that the majority of the people that are vocal about religion have no clue about what there faith really is. They talk on and on about how God is good and how they love God and Christ without ever realling envoking anything but there own ignorance.

I am a practising Catholic so there is no need to shower me with the sermon of being a heathen.

Since there is a more intelectual crowd here it is my hope that there are those of you out there that know your religion instead of just having faith in it.

So, if there are those of you out there that want to talk about the Christain religion and why and how it changed throughout the ages without getting caught up in it's fanatic trappings, feel free to do so here.

with all due respect, which i do think there certainly is value in understanding history, my faith does not arise from history or any other study or intellectual exercise, even reading the bible. my faith is a product of personal experience.

Nasor you're suffering from a lack of knowledge there aswell...what you're talking about is tradition...But you'll not find half of what is taught in the pulpit in the bible.

Modern Christianty is full of traditions that are completely false.

Everything from:

Hell Fire
Immortality of the Soul
Pagan Holidays
Worship of Idols.
Belief in Fate
Patriotism
Marriage
Purgatory???
Rapture??? No where in the bible.
Trinity
and Spiritism...

Going by the list there is not a bit of what makes a modern Christian in the Bible. And unfortunantly most of the individuals on the this forum come straight from that thinking believing this is what the bible represents...And it doesn't.

Recently in one thread a gentleman said..."according to the Bible worshiping the cross will earn Christian a hell fire too. (paraphrased) Not only is he right but he unknowing used a tradition for the understanding (hell fire) which is not biblical but based on the popular Dante's Inferno.

That's how far it's gotten.

with all due respect, which i do think there certainly is value in understanding history, my faith does not arise from history or any other study or intellectual exercise, even reading the bible. my faith is a product of personal experience.
Are you talking about objective empirical experiences, or subject internal experiences?

Are you talking about objective empirical experiences, or subject internal experiences?

Define "internal experience"...

See, I don't believe that you can separate the two. Nothing is magic and I'm not referring to imagination or subjective thought or emotions. Now whether these experiences were observed or witnessed by a third party questionable, but what I've experienced could in fact be measured somehow, regardless of whether it was in fact measured, or if we even have a means of measuring it.

K.Flint,

If you are christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to christianity?What history do you mean? Are you referring to the Catholic created view of history or the factual version?

If you follow the work of Q, a 300 year research project that studied the origins of Christianity you would be left in little doubt that Christianity is basically fantasy mythology.

That you still retain a Catholic faith indicates you have chosen the Catholic version of history. What makes you think that your version has any truth?

But I would agree that most Christians seem to have little knowledge of real Christian origins. It seems that most simply follow their cultural indoctrination and do not question it or look back with a critical independent look.

Christians believe in Jesus Chris. Your a Christian too, Chris is short for Christian.

I am Catholic because it is expected of me.

'What makes you think that your version has any truth?'

DO NOT ASSUME YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME. feel free to ask that is why I posted but making rude comments in the face of information you lack is not constructive.

The answer to your question is simple I have no truth. but from the studies I have done in the most simple and quick format and without listing things in full or without using anything but the critical eye.

Christ, followed old prohices in order to secure his place and paid for it by the hands of his own people not the Romans.

later Rome figured out that they could no longer scare the populace into submission since they were spread thin they could not have really put up a fight without great cost to them selves anyway.

So instead they created the church The Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire and held sin and ones soul over there heads in order to take there money and keep the people under Roman control.

From then until the modern age in one way or another the Holy Roman Church has subjagted humanity to there own will for control of worldly power through the name of God and the fear of damnation.

However with anything there is more to the tell and though the church and in this case even GOD was a means of power control the structure of events has caused a "true" faith of good people with good ideals.

I also like to see my self as a man of science and as my personal belifes go I love the Idea of God but see God as mans ultimate expression of EGO.

I follow the basic aspects of the church because they are inherently GOOD. one could do worse in life then strive to be a good person.

An attempt at establishing concision/clarity (this is not a reflection or comment on any surfeit or lack of familiarity with the subject in play here):

Hell Fire: originally a pagan notion -born of the idea of a fiery "underground realm", evidenced by volcanic, geothermal activity and earthquakes. Goes back way beyond Dante, the Romans, or probably recorded history.

Immortality of the Soul: from the concepts of absolute ability, knowledge, observer status (i.e. shamanism) and animism.

Pagan Holidays: festivals that celebrate yearly events like floods, the rising of Venus, lunar phases, harvests etc.

Worship of Idols: proscribed by JC - who told his disciples not to worship any image or likeness (of him); Moses forbade idolatry and "graven images".
Belief in Fate:
Patriotism:
Marriage:
Purgatory???
Rapture??? No where in the bible.

Trinity: linked to the Occidental (Hindu) idea of Creator-Sustainer-Destroyer.

and Spiritism...do you mean Animism - perception of a "spirit which moves" - things like the wind. waves, landslides, etc.

The Roman Empire became the Holy Roman EmpireNo. The HRE was a separate "empire" or kingdom from the Papal States (the Vatican). Barbarossa (Frederick I) declared himself the true leader of Christianity, then he and the Pope made a deal. There were a few would-be Popes, who attempted to disown the "true" one. The HRE was otherwise known as Germany (Germania).

I concur.

On Hellfire:
According to my information.

In ancint Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the "nether world...is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness." (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston 1898, Morris Jastrow Jr., p581

Early evidence of the firey aspect of Christendoms' hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The book of the Deat, New hyde Park, N.Y.., 1960, with introduction by E.A Wallis Budge, pp. 144,149,151,153,161)

Budhism, which deates back to the 6th century BCE in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. ( Encyclopedia Americana, 977, Vol> 14,p.68)

Nasor you're suffering from a lack of knowledge there aswell...what you're talking about is tradition...But you'll not find half of what is taught in the pulpit in the bible.

Modern Christianty is full of traditions that are completely false.

Everything from:

Hell Fire
Immortality of the Soul
Pagan Holidays
Worship of Idols.
Belief in Fate
Patriotism
Marriage
Purgatory???
Rapture??? No where in the bible.
Trinity
and Spiritism...

Going by the list there is not a bit of what makes a modern Christian in the Bible. And unfortunantly most of the individuals on the this forum come straight from that thinking believing this is what the bible represents...And it doesn't.

Recently in one thread a gentleman said..."according to the Bible worshiping the cross will earn Christian a hell fire too. (paraphrased) Not only is he right but he unknowing used a tradition for the understanding (hell fire) which is not biblical but based on the popular Dante's Inferno.

That's how far it's gotten.

So when are you going to correct all the misconceptions of ignorant Christians. You owe it to the world to do so.

The Problem Facing Christians.

What does the Bible say ? It says whatever I want it to say. Everyone else lacks my insight.

The Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Pastor Phelps and all the other nitwits out there

The Problem Facing Christians.

What does the Bible say ? It says whatever I want it to say. Everyone else lacks my insight.

The Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Pastor Phelps and all the other nitwits out there


Then, you mix in religion and doctrine, then you have something that Christianity isn't supposed to be. The founding fathers of Christianity debated over doctrine and interpretations of scripture. That was healthy until the converts started making religions. Paul had to tell the Corinthians to get their heads on straight. Chrisitianity should be only about following Christ, which encompasses all Christian religions, but is not bound by any religious doctrines or beliefs.

If you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it...Christians are not exempt from repeating early Christians' fates. And they are.

So, yes the majority of Christians do not know their history. I have barely scratched the surface, but I know enough to know the danger of Christianity of today....in fact, i've experienced it first hand.

No one truly understands Christianity. Think about it. They have 1000s of denominations because they have 1000s of interpretations of their Holy book because they all have a different idea of what Christianity and its teachings mean. To top it all off most of it is passed down from parents to children where many of those parents are no more qualified to teach religion to their children than they are to teach math or science. Any idiot that has a kid teaches their version of Christianity to their kids no matter how their version compares with anyone else's. Its truly an example of the blind leading the blind.

Jayleew is correct.

Despite these prevailing "theories" of Christianity there is no excuse for not going back to the source. Interpretation isn't required. Agenda's often interfere though.

Jayleew is correct.

Despite these prevailing "theories" of Christianity there is no excuse for not going back to the source. Interpretation isn't required. Agenda's often interfere though.

The first step must surely be to establish the veracity of the source.
Can I take it you are referring to all religious texts, rather than just the Bible?

No one truly understands Christianity. Think about it. They have 1000s of denominations because they have 1000s of interpretations of their Holy book because they all have a different idea of what Christianity and its teachings mean. To top it all off most of it is passed down from parents to children where many of those parents are no more qualified to teach religion to their children than they are to teach math or science. Any idiot that has a kid teaches their version of Christianity to their kids no matter how their version compares with anyone else's. Its truly an example of the blind leading the blind.

Also, consider that the Catholic Church provides evident disclosure of it's own contradictionx with the Bible in the volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It offers origins and some confessions of lack of support on the bible.

Roman Catholic Cristianity also has a distrubingly long list of attrocities that many have accused Chrisitianity it's self for commiting. They have been consistently and knowling neglect, opportunistic, immoral and rife with conflict through out thousands of years. They have been a blinding source of darkness not only in relation to bible facts but also to truth as a whole holding back scientific progress not to mention jumping in bed with dictators to ensure the churche's dominance.

Ironic as Hitler would have destroyed the Chruch eventutually.

Also, consider that the Catholic Church provides evident disclosure of it's own contradictionx with the Bible in the volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia. It offers origins and some confessions of lack of support on the bible.

Roman Catholic Cristianity also has a distrubingly long list of attrocities that many have accused Chrisitianity it's self for commiting. They have been consistently and knowling neglect, opportunistic, immoral and rife with conflict through out thousands of years. They have been a blinding source of darkness not only in relation to bible facts but also to truth as a whole holding back scientific progress not to mention jumping in bed with dictators to ensure the churche's dominance.

Ironic as Hitler would have destroyed the Chruch eventutually.



That rotten history is known to every informed person. So, who is attempting to deny evolution and stop stem cell research today ? I suggest it's people with the same mindset as the catholics you refer to.

The whole point is that reason and religious faith have always been at odds and will continue to be so.

Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder)

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop. :mad:

Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder)

I won't hold my breath waitning for a rejoinder but why not tell others where to find evidence of evolution in the Bible ? I suggest that one can interpret the Bible to mean anything one wants and that goes a long way to explain all th in fighting among Christians . I may be wrong, but I am not aware of a cognate of "evolution" in Ancient Greek. Give me a reference and I shall check it out

How come there was no mention of evolution before Darwin and Huxley? And why was it rejected by ALL Christians at that time ? Were they all misreading the Bible ?

I am Catholic because it is expected of me.



Who expects it of you?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop. :mad:

Scary is right...from being hunted and ostracized suddenly they were accepted and popularized as you said through paganism.

Who expects it of you?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Likely the parents. He should follow what his parents have outlined though but he should also know that there will be a time for him to make the decision on his own awell.

as well.

;)...

Likely the parents. He should follow what his parents have outlined though but he should also know that there will be a time for him to make the decision on his own awell.

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

;)...
Yes, Thanks.

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days


It depends if he's an adult...or a child. Children expect to be taught. They've been taught wrong for thousands of years but it's our thirst to exceed that relationship...especially men that seems to define us as human beings...wer're not satisfied with dictation...we want to know why.

If someone is in a religion because some other human being "expects it of them" then that is one of the worst possible reason to be a part of a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I am delighted to be able to agree with you for once.The only problem I see is that a child does not think for itself; it tends to go along with what its "elders and betters" tell it. I broke away when I was fifteen but I imagine a lot of people fail to take religion seriously after a certain age so they drop it or judt go through the motions. For others, its a matter of peer group pressure.

[QUOTE=Saquist;1758975]Oh yeah despite this being a scientific forum ...They have also agreed with scientist on evolution counter to the Bible so they're hypocrisy is thorough.
Without going into dept the Bible shows a thread of events that do corespond with the occurence of life better than evolution. While the evolution premise is still up in the air the the churches' understanding of evolution and creation are both quite ignorant. They propose to decide for they're partitioners as too how God created the Earth now and before subjected them to unlikely hood that God created the Earth is just six days despite the solid stand of the biblical facts.

(oh and Miles I know you'll respond to that but do not expect a rejoinder



Just something I missed first time round. "evolution premise is stll up in the air "

Evolution is a THEORY based on SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE and it has the support of scientists worldwife. Only the scientifically illiterate or a handful of scientists with a religious agenda reject it. To say it is still up in the air betrays a total misunderstanding of the standing of evolutionary theory.

their history is actuly quite impresive and scary. in 100 years, euroupe is almost all christian due to the addition of the holiday's that were traditnial to the pagens. from there, it was you are with us or dead. thoose who didn't like it, pop. :mad:

A holiday has little to do with someone's beliefs. AFAIK many Christians believe in stuff like this and it gets people thinking:

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

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

A holiday has little to do with someone's beliefs. AFAIK many Christians believe in stuff like this and it gets people thinking:

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

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

The Shroud of Turin was subjected to scientific analysis a few years ago and was shown , if I remember correctly, to be about 800-1,000 years old. So it is a fake.

But religious minds are never bothered by facts. When the results were made known to him. a bishop said he was not at all concerned because he considered the Shroud to be a relic, or something of the kind. It is still on display.

That is not correct, the shroud has never been shown to be fake, and from what i have read about it it is a negative image.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-negativity.htm

"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity. How did he know that he had it right with no ability to test his work. The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct. And how did he do so by altering the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating in which the image resides? But the big question is why?"

I dont think it has ever been reproduced with close to the level of detail and accuracy to call it a reproduction.

The other thing about the 'miracle of the sun' is that kid predicted it and on that very day it happened. She also predicted many other things that can be read about which i cant post because they will be deleted. To be clear i am reading all this stuff off the internet, which is how i learned about them but i try to read a variety of sources and so far i have not seen any that dispute the two thing i mentioned. I would like to see links that do.

From Wikipedia:

As early as July the lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun.

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that was witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal.
--------------------
Pretty compelling.

I would say no, but then is it really necessary? What is striking to me is that most of the seminary school graduates do not know the history of the religion either. I think history while not necessary, does yield a much better understanding and a much better Christian.
It also appears to me that followers of Islam are equally if not more ignorant of the history of their religion.

Also the 'Shroud of Turin' is pretty compelling, either way for me it does not matter.

To add to that, i had never heard of that miracle until a few days ago and the shroud of turin cannot be replicated. The way i feel about that is if it cannot be done in present times it could be legitimate.

The shroud is only "unexplainable" if you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loundly whenever perfectly reasonable explanations are offered (which many christians are admittedly very good at).

From wikipedia:
In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild developed a program of tests to conduct on the Shroud, designated the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, granted permission, despite disagreement within the Church. The STURP scientists conducted their testing over five days in 1978. Walter McCrone, a member of the team, upon analyzing the samples he had, concluded in 1979 that the image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles....According to McCrone, the pigments used were a combination of red ochre and vermillion tempera paint. The Electron Optics Group of McCrone Associates published the results of these studies in five articles in peer-reviewed journals: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77–83. STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone's samples, and brought in other scientists to replace him. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP and continued to defend the analysis he had performed, becoming a prominent proponent of the position that the Shroud is a forgery. As of 2004, no other scientists have been able to confirm or refute McCrone's results with independent experiments, simply because the Vatican refuses to cooperate.
To sum up, a careful analysis that was published in a peer-reviewed journal determined that the shroud image was painted on with common medieval paints.


"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity."
That alone should be proof that this guy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Negative images date back to at least 470 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

That is not correct, the shroud has never been shown to be fake, and from what i have read about it it is a negative image.

http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud-of-turin-negativity.htm

"It is hard to imagine how a faker of relics created a negative image hundreds of years before the discovery of photographic negativity. How did he know that he had it right with no ability to test his work. The negativity is extraordinarily precise and correct. And how did he do so by altering the chemical properties of the carbohydrate coating in which the image resides? But the big question is why?"

I dont think it has ever been reproduced with close to the level of detail and accuracy to call it a reproduction.

The other thing about the 'miracle of the sun' is that kid predicted it and on that very day it happened. She also predicted many other things that can be read about which i cant post because they will be deleted. To be clear i am reading all this stuff off the internet, which is how i learned about them but i try to read a variety of sources and so far i have not seen any that dispute the two thing i mentioned. I would like to see links that do.

From Wikipedia:

As early as July the lady had promised a miracle for the final apparition, on October 13, so that all would believe. What transpired became known as "Miracle of the Sun.

The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that was witnessed by as many as 100,000 people on 13 October 1917 in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal.
--------------------
Pretty compelling.

Only compelling if you are determined to believe such stuff. I saw a documentary on the Shroud, the material of which was not nearly as old as had been believed. The negative image was also explained. It was all clever stuff but a fake nonetheless. Even the bishop who was involved agreed.

The "miracle" of the sun was no miracle. If you have a knowledge of elementary physics you would realize what the effects on the earth would be if such a thing were to happen. I suggest you read up on mass hallucination for a natural, proven explanation of what was going on. Bear in mind that we often see what we wish to see, particularly if we have been subjected to an emotional build.

The question is what is the purpose believing in the shrouds authenticity?
Will it become another worshiped Idol? If so it's best it burned. Chrisitians already worship the cross and the virgin Mary as well as a myriad of "saints" despite instruction against Idol worship.

The question is what is the purpose believing in the shrouds authenticity?
Will it become another worshiped Idol? If so it's best it burned. Chrisitians already worship the cross and the virgin Mary as well as a myriad of "saints" despite instruction against Idol worship.

Let them indulge in their superstitious practices just as you do in yours.

I like your bit " despite instruction against Idol worship ". I find it just as foolish that you believe the Bible as you do that Christians indulge in silly practices. You are all one of a piece in the end in that you share a common illusion.To paraphrase Orwell, some illusions are more illusory than others.

Unfortunately, many of my fellow Christians are only Christians for a way out. So, they have no reason to. Of course, this is not a good thing. What is the point of religion if you don't try to learn more about things like it's origin.

Unfortunately, many of my fellow Christians are only Christians for a way out. So, they have no reason to. Of course, this is not a good thing. What is the point of religion if you don't try to learn more about things like it's origin.

I'm more interested in the age of rocks than the rock of ages. No offence meant

Myles and Nasor,

As i have stated previously, the pinhole camera and camera obscura are no longer considered possibilities and if they ever were they were just guesses and never shown to reproduce 'the shroud'. It was not painted either, anyone who has researched it enough knows this.

The Shroud is a piece of linen cloth 14'3" long by 3'7" wide. The unusual thing about it is that it appears to have an image of the front and back of a man who was about 6' tall. The image appears as a negative rather than a positive image, and it shows features that can be interpreted as marks of crucifixion.

The implication is that this long cloth was laid flat, the body was laid on top of it and then the other half of the cloth was folded back over the body. This situation may certainly have been true for whoever the person was whose image is preserved in the cloth. Modern science cannot explain how the images could have appeared in the cloth and cannot duplicate the results by any known means.

Someone even went to the trouble of using real blood, whatever you believe it is still an interest artifact that is documented up to 1345 AD. Has nothing to do with superstition because if it is fake it really wouldnt matter and the bible itself contradicts it. Yet i remain on the fence because even though it was studied by world renowned scientists it remains a mystery. And if it cannot be reproduced with all the technology available in the year 2008 i would really like to know how it was done.

http://www.jesusisreal.org/shroudofturin/index.htm

Back on topic:

Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion?

Do any of you guys believe that Jesus has been earth bound many times, or is it just me? Is that in keeping with any Christian philosophy?

Back on topic:



Do any of you guys believe that Jesus has been earth bound many times, or is it just me? Is that in keeping with any Christian philosophy?

He might well have been earth bound several times but failed to make it because of problems with his celestial spaceship

Please take into consideration that i had an NDE and Jesus' intervention kept me here. I am not lying either, perhaps it was hallucination but i dont hallucinate.

Myles, what is your opinion on this:

"It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time
"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.
"Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet...turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.
"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.
"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.
"All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena."

Professor Almeida Garrett's full account may be found in Novos Documentos de Fatima (Loyala editions, San Paulo, 1984)



Do you really think it was mass hallucination given the fact it was witnessed by 100,000+ people, with some child predicted this months before even giving the date.

Dont you even consider extra natural possibilities?

Myles,

Do you think that there is the possibility that Mozart, DaVinci, Paganinni and Hieronymus Bosch amongst others have tapped into some sort of extranatural\supernatural ability?

Myles,

Do you think that there is the possibility that Mozart, DaVinci, Paganinni and Hieronymus Bosch amongst others have tapped into some sort of extranatural\supernatural ability?

No, their works were natural. Isn't everything that occurs in nature, natural by definition? Beyond our understanding perhaps but natural none the less.

Damn, i spelled Paganini wrong and you quoted me.

I am not saying that my posts are definitive proof of anything but as far as the artists mentioned, how many people could compete with them even if they lived 100 lifetimes?

Of course with art it is not only the ability to produce the work it is the idea behind it, the conception and their ability to come up with so many new works is astonishing.

Those are the ones i am familiar with so i am not saying western art is better just that i know more about it.

Myles and Nasor,

As i have stated previously, the pinhole camera and camera obscura are no longer considered possibilities and if they ever were they were just guesses and never shown to reproduce 'the shroud'.
The point is that negative images were not unknown to people (especially artists) in the midde ages, as many shroud-believers like to claim.
It was not painted either, anyone who has researched it enough knows this.
Since the pigments producing the image are common medieval paints, it almost certainly was painted. The fact that we aren't sure exactly how the paint was applied doesn't change this. Clearly it was something more complicated than simply sloping the paint on with a brush, but fact that it’s made of medieval paint seems like a pretty good indication that it was painted.

Yet i remain on the fence because even though it was studied by world renowned scientists it remains a mystery. And if it cannot be reproduced with all the technology available in the year 2008 i would really like to know how it was done.
"World-renowned scientists" concluded that it was a medieval fake; they dated it to the middle ages with radiometric dating and concluded that the image was composed of medieval paint after examining it with electron microscopy. This was all published in peer-reviewed science journals. Since then, the Vatican hasn't allowed any "neutral" scientists to examine the shroud - they got tired of every scientific test concluding that it was only about 800 years old, so they simply stopped allowing disinterested scientists to study it. Now it only gets examined by the Vatican's chosen cadre of "scientists" who do everything they can to promote the idea that the shroud is supernatural. In fact, the guy who determined that the image was made of paint was originally a member of that Vatican group, but they kicked him out and confiscated his samples after he published his results. That alone should speak volumes about the reliability of their "evidence" that the shroud is supernatural.

I am a practising Catholic so there is no need to shower me with the sermon of being a heathen.
I find that odd. At least most christians have the excuse of ignorance, if you studied human history and understand how religions arose in human communities how can you then go on to actually believe in a particular religion?

It would be like finding out santa clause is a fictional character that was invented to make children behave, then saying "interesting... speaking of santa, I wonder what he will bring me this year?", weren't you paying attention?

It's true that there are a lot of ignorant Christians out there, but that's only because most of the worlds population are ignorant, because most of the worlds population has better things to do then study history, like raise kids, get a promotion, do the laundry...whatever.

But don't label all Christians as ignorant, there are some pretty damn smart ones out there (I'm not including myself but, I'm still just learning).

Also can people please write where they are getting all these apparent 'facts' from that they keep writing please.

The Church as a body of believers was around for a long time before it suddenly seemed like a good idea by Rome to adopt it as a religion.

Also the devil is seen in the old testament. The devil is mentioned in Job, the 'adversary'.

Also my studies of the Old Testament have shown me God's promise slowly being revealed to a rebellious people, and finally made whole in Jesus.

The Jews didn't believe in original sin?
Why does the Torah tell the story of Adam and Eve.
Why are there the ten commandments.
And the rest of the Law.
Which they would be punished and put back in line if they did not follow.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice the Jewish sacrificial system was never created to be permanent it was always God's plan to save his chosen people Israel, and through them the other nations, through the redemptive work of his son. Jesus wasn't what they expected, but it was what God had planned.

Shhhhh every time someone says Santa doesn't exist, Santa kills a kitten!

No, I don't think so...Answers, Most Christians are ignorant because they don't make the time to learn more about their religion...This is true for even the educated ones...It's about what is practiced at church. They don't bring their bible, They listen to pastors and most of them couldn't tell what Haggai is let alone find it.

Please take into consideration that i had an NDE and Jesus' intervention kept me here. I am not lying either, perhaps it was hallucination but i dont hallucinate.

Myles, what is your opinion on this:



Do you really think it was mass hallucination given the fact it was witnessed by 100,000+ people, with some child predicted this months before even giving the date.

Dont you even consider extra natural possibilities?

In short, no. I reject the god of the gaps.

I find that odd. At least most christians have the excuse of ignorance, if you studied human history and understand how religions arose in human communities how can you then go on to actually believe in a particular religion?

It would be like finding out santa clause is a fictional character that was invented to make children behave, then saying "interesting... speaking of santa, I wonder what he will bring me this year?", weren't you paying attention?

Not a problem. He will bring presents to good children and some bad children and nothing to children whose parents are poor and have not learned the value of thrift.

See Book of Santa: 2.14

But don't label all Christians as ignorant, there are some pretty damn smart ones out there (I'm not including myself but, I'm still just learning).
A person can be very smart and very good at, say, electrical engineering without knowing anything about religious history. It's true that there are some christians who know quite a lot about church history, but they are almost always the most moderate types who don't take anything literally.

Also the devil is seen in the old testament. The devil is mentioned in Job, the 'adversary'.
Yes, but it says "adversary," not "a fallen angel who lives in hell". Notice the difference there?

The Jews didn't believe in original sin?
Why does the Torah tell the story of Adam and Eve.
Why are there the ten commandments.
And the rest of the Law.
Which they would be punished and put back in line if they did not follow.

The Jews had the story of Adam and Eve, of course, but "original sin" was a christian invention. The Jews thought that God had is law and that you would eb punished if you didn't follow it (usually on earth - he would simply kill you, make you sick, make your army lose a battle, etc. if you didn't obey).

Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice the Jewish sacrificial system was never created to be permanent...
But, as I stated earlier, Jews did not use sacrifice to atone for sins! They used it to show devotion, to seal covenants, and many other reasons, but not generally to atone for sin. You could only use a sacrifice to atone for a minor sin that you committed on accident (like if you accidentally ate a forbidden food, etc.).

I find that odd. At least most christians have the excuse of ignorance, if you studied human history and understand how religions arose in human communities how can you then go on to actually believe in a particular religion?

It would be like finding out santa clause is a fictional character that was invented to make children behave, then saying "interesting... speaking of santa, I wonder what he will bring me this year?", weren't you paying attention?

increase your knowledge increase your sorrow.

I still follow the practice of bonding with family. I have hope and love the idea of a father figure that loves us all and wants us to be good. just because I have a view that I belive is beyond that of those around me does not mean I need to throw it in there faces nor disrespect there ideals, 1 hour once a wk is a small price to pay to stay connected to the ones I love.

The Jews had the story of Adam and Eve, of course, but "original sin" was a christian invention. The Jews thought that God had is law and that you would eb punished if you didn't follow it (usually on earth - he would simply kill you, make you sick, make your army lose a battle, etc. if you didn't obey).


But, as I stated earlier, Jews did not use sacrifice to atone for sins! They used it to show devotion, to seal covenants, and many other reasons, but not generally to atone for sin. You could only use a sacrifice to atone for a minor sin that you committed on accident (like if you accidentally ate a forbidden food, etc.).

The term original sin was coin by Christians , however not the concept of the heredity of sin which is what original sin refrences. This is evidently what the psalmist refers to in saying: “With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.”

Certainly they understood sin was passed down.. Romans 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” There is no divergence from this thinking.

Did the Jews sacrifice to atone for sin?

Ex 29:36
"And you will offer the bull of the sin offering daily for an atonement, and you must purify the altar from sin by your making atonement over it, and you must anoint it to sanctify it."


Le 4:20)
And he must do to the bull just as he did to the other bull of the sin offering. That is the way he will do to it; and the priest must make an atonement for them, and so it must be forgiven them.

Of particular significance was the annual Atonement Day, when Israel’s high priest offered animal sacrifices and made atonement for himself, for the other Levites, and for the nonpriestly tribes of Israel. (Le 16) Sacrificial animals were to be unblemished, indicating the necessity of perfection on the part of their antitype. Also, that atonement is a costly matter is shown in that the victim’s life was given, its blood being shed to make atonement.

"Does God have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of God? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as using uncanny power and teraphim. Since you have rejected the word of God, he accordingly rejects you from being king.”—1*Sam. 15:21-23.

So apparently sacrifice was definitely a part of atonement for sin aswell as to show devotion and convenant which all relate to obedience the failure of which would require atonement for error as 1 Sammuel indicates.

spot on saquist. Also there was the sin offering once a year when only the high priest would go into the furthermost room of the temple and sacrifice a lamb for all the sin of Israel.

Are you refering to the Most Holy?

No. The majority of people, today, haven't read two books since they left school. People KNOW nothing.

Most people are being LEAD. Followers following leaders. Or peers following the lead of their Peer Groups.

Even Catholics do not know the history of their Religion.

For instance, does any Catholic know that the complete form and nature of Catholicism had been betrayed with the Council of Trend -- effectively the Surrender of Catholicism to Protestant Pressures.

The Council of Trent effectively made Catholics as Antichristical as the Protestants would ever be. At least the Bishops and the Secular Priests -- the only people who paid Any attention to the dictates of the Council of Trend. The Marian Religious Orders remained on course.

So many other Religious Orders have been subverted though. You see, EVERY ordained Priest, even from the Religious Orders, have to go through Seminary Classes that teach according to the Antichristical Doctrines accepted at the Council of Trent.

Really it is why the Bishops and the Secular Priests have such a problem with corruption and various forms of sodomy and perversion. They BELIEVE that they are forgiven for their sins... exactly like Protestants.

Oh... don't let Protestants kid themselves. They are as corrupt and perverse as any Catholic Bishop... but so far no lawyer has seen a reason to take it to Court. you see, the Catholic Bishops have Hospitals and Schools that can be sold to pay off legal judgements. Protestants don't own shit.


Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion? Or is there only bond to christianity been created by blind faith?

If you are christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to christianity?

I have done in depth research on the subject and find it really very interesting. What I find most disturbing is that the majority of the people that are vocal about religion have no clue about what there faith really is. They talk on and on about how God is good and how they love God and Christ without ever realling envoking anything but there own ignorance.

I am a practising Catholic so there is no need to shower me with the sermon of being a heathen.

Since there is a more intelectual crowd here it is my hope that there are those of you out there that know your religion instead of just having faith in it.

So, if there are those of you out there that want to talk about the Christain religion and why and how it changed throughout the ages without getting caught up in it's fanatic trappings, feel free to do so here.

Nasor,

The Catholic church does not promote the shroud at all, just because they dont just hand it out to anyone who asks does not mean they are hiding it.

But all your assumptions about paint and cameras aside from contradicting yourself have been shown to be false. Look at the facts with an open mind, if it is or it isnt an actual burial cloth then it is still somehting that needs to be analyzed because we DONT KNOW HOW IT WAS DONE AND CANNOT REPRODUCE IT.

We can create a little thumb drive with an encyclopedias worth of data but cannot reproduce a painting or a photograph?

Nasor,

The Catholic church does not promote the shroud at all, just because they dont just hand it out to anyone who asks does not mean they are hiding it.

But all your assumptions about paint and cameras aside from contradicting yourself have been shown to be false. Look at the facts with an open mind, if it is or it isnt an actual burial cloth then it is still somehting that needs to be analyzed because we DONT KNOW HOW IT WAS DONE AND CANNOT REPRODUCE IT.

We can create a little thumb drive with an encyclopedias worth of data but cannot reproduce a painting or a photograph?
************
M*W: If the Catholic Church doesn't promote the shroud, why do they have it hanging in one of their churches?

I do think they support the shroud.
it's just anthor chrisitian relic and idol they honor...like the potato chip that looks like "jesus" even though we don't know what he looked like...It's an obssession and it really has nothing to do with God or Jesus.

It should be left alone.

The catholic church neither supports the shroud as irrefutable proof of Jesus, but i guess they want to keep control of it, people make money out of "holy" artefacts and while ever there are people who believe that the shroud is the one that covered Jesus then the shroud will have value to the catholic church.

This whole debate over the shroud is irrelevant to proving the Messiah Jesus anyway. How could a shroud ever prove Jesus the Messiah?

Even if the shroud was the one that the body of Jesus was wrapped in, it cannot prove that Jesus was raised from the dead, nor can it prove that Jesus is Lord. Even if forensic science proved this shroud to be nearly 2000 years old people could still deny Jesus as Messiah, they could just say it was the shroud of a common criminal of the time who suffered an execution common during the time.

The shroud cannot prove anything. It cannot prove of Disprove the Gospel message. Only the Message itself will lead ones to salvation. I believe God does not what the Gospel to be proven with science. I believe He wants the message to win the saved.

So this whole debate is pointless.

The shroud means nothing to those who believe because of the Message. True faith is founded on the message not on physical evidence.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

The thread's primary post dealt with:

Quoting: "Do the majority of christians know the history of there religion? Or is there only bond to christianity been created by blind faith?

If you are christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to christianity?

I have done in depth research on the subject and find it really very interesting. What I find most disturbing is that the majority of the people that are vocal about religion have no clue about what there faith really is. They talk on and on about how God is good and how they love God and Christ without ever really invoking anything but there own ignorance.

I am a practicing Catholic so there is no need to shower me with the sermon of being a heathen.

Since there is a more intellectual crowd here it is my hope that there are those of you out there that know your religion instead of just having faith in it.

So, if there are those of you out there that want to talk about the Christain religion and why and how it changed throughout the ages without getting caught up in it's fanatic trappings, feel free to do so here."

___________________

Question One: "Do the majority of Christians know the history of there religion?"

The origin of the "Christian bible" was created by two European kings, in the 700's, who sent crews out into the known world, to beg, borrow, copy, and or steal, everything associated with all religion.. then they had their scholars assemble what they could fathom of what they compiled, into a book, which they commanded all their subjects to read, under penalty of death for failure to do so... Essentially it was, and is, a how-to book on basic healthy living...

They knitted unrelated stories using filler which made unrelateds seem to read as one...
Check it out, and you will see the bible if full of fillers between unrelated segments...

Generally Christians don't have a clue that those two kings wrote their precious book...
The so called "faithful" reject that fact, because it doesn't fit their beliefs... Essentially they shove it under the carpet, and try to ignore and forget it...

__

Question Two: " If you are Christian, have you learned only from the BIBLE or have you really studied the historical time line in regards to Christianity?"

I am not a Christian, so I can't respond as you might wish.. but for the fact that when I was 3-months old, being molested by a priest's mouth, I downloaded all that the priest monk read over his 14-years in Rome's restricted libraries.. and all the data is retrievable.. so essentially I've pretty-much seen all the data that makes up the Christian religion.. and in all of it I can't see any religion in it.. only a group of homosexuals perpetually parasitizing the masses for the free ride...

__

Three: "it is my hope that there are those of you out there that know your religion instead of just having faith in it."

That's a good statement... So who can tell us what we actually KNOW, and can prove, about the solid-base of Christianity..?

Religion is cultural. So is trade and the worship of special days or events (new year, birthday, memorial day).

Religion is more than the doctrine that arises to support it. Christians who seriously believe the dogma that the Bible came first need to be reminded that it wasn't "completed" until the 4th century.
But there's the "spiritual" side as well. Religion is festive and a group activity, but the worship is different --it's meant to be the biggie, like the ultimate "reason" to have a party. And the spiritual side of it includes meditation (prayer) and an inner experience.

My view is that it starts with the last thing, the inner thing, and the rest is detail.

Religion should be about truth, honor, loyalty, kindness. After all the point is to maintain what is good. If it were merely about culture then there really is no point in having religion if it is actually a social and cultural distinction.

No, it isn't about culture, it's culture in action. Religion is cultural, culture is social.

It's like a connection from the inner (what the East has mostly pursued), to the external "presence" of a "force" of some kind - explained by "god", or "gods" (pursued mostly by the West), independent "forces" or beings.
Animism and shamanism evolved along with culture and what we call civilisation - which is another word for city-states and feudalism which evolved into modern-day "democracies".

Religion should be about truth, honor, loyalty, kindness. After all the point is to maintain what is good. If it were merely about culture then there really is no point in having religion if it is actually a social and cultural distinction.

That could explain why a religious person is so hard to find.

I'm not sure i'm following that...
It's not about culture, sulture in action...
Religion is culture in action?

Bingo.

Question One: "Do the majority of Christians know the history of there religion?"

The origin of the "Christian bible" was created by two European kings, in the 700's, who sent crews out into the known world, to beg, borrow, copy, and or steal, everything associated with all religion.. then they had their scholars assemble what they could fathom of what they compiled, into a book, which they commanded all their subjects to read, under penalty of death for failure to do so... Essentially it was, and is, a how-to book on basic healthy living...

They knitted unrelated stories using filler which made unrelateds seem to read as one...
Check it out, and you will see the bible if full of fillers between unrelated segments...

Generally Christians don't have a clue that those two kings wrote their precious book...
The so called "faithful" reject that fact, because it doesn't fit their beliefs... Essentially they shove it under the carpet, and try to ignore and forget it...

Wow. The sheer idiocy of this is astounding. This "theory" can be debunked by simply pointing out that most Bible's since Wescott and Hort have been based on the manuscripts Siniaticus and Vaticanus (with additions from Alexandrinus) all of which date not only before the 8th century, but all the way back to the 4th century. The entire canon is used as early as Origen in the early 3rd century. All of that meaning that whatever Internet site you read that off of is having a good laugh now that you bought into it.

no he is right, the bible is made up of books that the church voted to include via the council of trent. There are several books 100's in fact that did not make it into the modern western version of the bible. His time frame is off but the point remains true. that which is not accepted is ignored.