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

Are you refering to the Most Holy?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

************
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".

 

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.

 

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.